The simply majority school levy ballot measure is now passing by nearly 7,000 votes, or a margin of 50.2% - 49.8%. Of note, the margin was closing today even as other counties reported tallies before King and was extended further as other counties reported after King as well.
Symbolizing the degree to which the "yes" campaign was gaining steam toward the end, the most recent tally moved Spokane from slightly opposing the measure to slightly approving. Meanwhile, though Pierce overall remains opposed 47.7% - 52.3%, today's count of over 31,000 votes on 4204 was 51.7% in favor v. 48.3% against.
With a bit under 69,000 ballots estimated left to count, 32,000 of which are in King, 4204 is going to pass.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 13, 2007 07:23 PM | Email ThisSay what you will about HJR-4204, but their late-game GOTV campaign was impressive and sure is making for entertainment in an otherwise anticlimactic year.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 13, 2007 08:00 PMWhere's the story about the gigantic conspiracy?
When's the lawsuit?
Posted by: Koncerveteev on November 13, 2007 08:36 PMWait until you get your property tax statement and rent increase next year, you won't want to open the envelope, I guarantee it!
Posted by: GS on November 13, 2007 08:51 PMRICH ROESSLER, SPOKESMAN REVIEW
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
In a stunning turnaround, a property tax measure that was widely assumed to be dead on last week has come back to life, bolstered by thousands of late ballots, particularly from King County.
"My faith in representative democracy is growing," said a "delighted" Christie Querna, president of the Spokane Public Schools board.
The controversial measure is now leading, 755,061 votes to 747,863. That 7,198-vote lead is a dramatic reversal from a week ago, when Election Night ballot counting showed it losing by a margin of about 46 percent to 54 percent.
"This is an incredible lead," said Maureen Ramos, president of the Spokane Education Association, who was breaking into meetings throughout the office Tuesday to relay the news.
House Joint Resolution 4204 would amend the state constitution, making it easier for school districts to pass property tax levies. Since the 1930s, districts have had to win approval of a 60 percent "supermajority" of voters to pass levies. HJR 4204 would reduce that to just a simple majority.
If current trends continue over the final days of counting straggler ballots, Ramos said, the margin of victory is likely to grow. That's because nearly half the remaining 70,000 or so ballots are in King County. Voters there like the measure by a strong 58 percent to 42 percent margin. It is only passing, however, in 8 of the state's 39 counties.
Anti-tax promoter Tim Eyman said it would be a mistake for political leaders to surmise that voters are untroubled by their property taxes.
"Three or four million dollars spent, with no opposition, and yet they barely eke out a victory?" he said. "Yeah, voters LOVE tax increases ... This is just gasoline on the fire."
Eyman also said it doesn't help voter cynicism that a property tax measure is getting a big boost from King County. Conservatives' memories of the 2004 governor's race - narrowly lost by Republican Dino Rossi amid reports of election mistakes and newly found ballots - are still fresh, he said.
"Another election stolen by King County?" Eyman said. "You can't say that people aren't saying it and aren't thinking it."
Pundits and Republican politicians suggested last week that the apparent failure of the measure - combined with a win for anti-tax I-960 and the torpedoing of a huge Puget Sound transportation tax plan - meant that voters remain deeply leery of taxes.
" ... We believe that property taxes are already too high, and we did not think citizens would want us to make it easier to raise them," Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla, said the morning after Election Day.
"The voters of this state get it," Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake said at the time. "We love our school districts, we love our teachers, we love our kids, but this isn't about them. It's about money ... The voters have spoken."
It's unclear what caused later voters - in many counties, not just King - to favor the measure more than early voters.
"You can see a real shift of the electorate," Secretary of State Sam Reed said Tuesday at his office in the state capitol. "More elderly voters tend to vote early, that may be part of the pattern."
In Spokane, Ramos said supporters made a big push to prod on-again, off-again voters into casting ballots. Hundreds of thousands statewide were called and urged to vote, she said.
-- END --
http://spokesmanreview.com/blogs/olympia/
Votes don't go his way and he claims fraud.
This is not only embarassing for him (as if he needs any more embarassments) but for his followers.
He's made fraud allegation after allegation that has been shown in court to be false.
Seems like the only fraud ever documented was Eyman ripping off his supporters and lining his pockets with their donations...see: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/56964_eyman03ww.shtml including: "It was the biggest lie of my life" that no donations had made their way into his personal bank account, Eyman told The Associated Press."
This is clearly the end of the Eyman era for all sensible folks.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 13, 2007 09:47 PMTo be fair, Mr. Eyman did not claim fraud; rather, he claimed that people are talking about fraud, and no one should be surprised. I'm not surprised that people do not trust King County. But massive fraud to support HJR-4204? I'm cynical, but I drink tap water.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 13, 2007 09:59 PMSend your kids to private schools or homeschool them if you can.
Time for Atlas to Shrug.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 13, 2007 11:54 PMHuh? With the advent of interst in mail-in ballots, the 40% requirement hasn't come into play in many, many years.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 14, 2007 05:09 AMIn particular:
.... " and would eliminate supermajority approval requirements based on voter turnout in previous elections ".
That statement could mean a variety of different things. It could mean that voter turnout requirements would be increased. And well they should.
Anyone care to initiate a commoner's petition that the effect of the proposed legislation was not understood by the voters?
I will hand carry the petition signatures to our Supreme Court and to the proper office in Olympia.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 05:46 AMAND, AND, AND Change the validation turnout.
That's TWO, TWO, TWO subjects in the ballot title.
End of story. GOOD BYE 4204 !!!
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 05:51 AMA Resolution might be associated with different criteria than a Referendum.
But I still didn't understand it.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 05:59 AMBill A want to bet that in the next 5 years we will still hear that the schools STILL don't have enought$$$. This state is going to kill it's self.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 14, 2007 06:39 AMLater voters are those who wait to get their absentee ballots in -- until the end, often election day.
Perhaps they are 1) lazier or 2) interested in looking at all the issues, with all the information, in depth -- including any "late-breaking" information in a campaign.
Some have said that those with minds made up vote right away...those that are uncertain wait.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 14, 2007 07:56 AMBTW, all that is needed now for approval of *any* tax increase is a simple majority. In order to do that, you move funding from the general fund titled "schools" into other purposes, then put forth a tax increase "for the children". This allows you to ratchet taxes up by one school budget at a time. So long as the actual tax end up in the general fund, it's fungible.
Posted by: bfr on November 14, 2007 08:19 AMAnyway, I do wonder why there is very little public opposition campaigns to school bonds/levies or fire district levies. Perhaps parents fear teacher/administrator retaliation on our children. Those people often hold the future success of our children in their pens. It is not the parents that approve a child entry into AP/honors level courses or advanced programs like Running Start or ORCA.
It will be interesting to see how many people get taxed out of their homes to satisfy the beasts' hunger for our empty wallets.
Posted by: Iso on November 14, 2007 08:21 AMSnort.
Yep. It sure is. Not only did Eyman's latest initiative pass, the governor and Legislature are currently falling all over themselves to enact his prior initiatives that were thrown out of court.
If this is the 'end' of the Eyman era, you sure have a funny way of defining it.
Posted by: jimg on November 14, 2007 09:18 AMI don't claim to have all the answers, half the answers, or even ten percent of the answers, but I have a pretty reasonable answer, here.
The Approve HJR-4204 campaign went into overdrive in the few days before the election. They did a massive phone drive, and may have even stepped up television ad spots. My house must've gotten at least 3 HJR-4204 related calls in the two weeks before the election.
That considered, I don't see how a shift from 52% failing to 52% passing in late ballots is so hard. That means that, external matters excepted (the nature of late voters, for instance), the "Approve" campaign would have just had to flip 1 in 25 voters.
Unless there is massive statewide fraud (in Spokane County? Skagit?), I see no meat to the vague implications Eyman mentions.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 14, 2007 09:42 AMIt is quite obvious to 'all sensible folks' that you are a government loving lackey. A buffoon of the highest order. Thank you for your support of the oppressive boot of government on our necks. You brain damaged imbecile, the only one who should be embarrassed is you. I have heard it from alot of people that they think that the vote was stolen by king county. You don't get it why people don't want to fork out any more money for your overcostly school districts. Just like all government beuracracy you dumbasses can't get enough money from the people, you always want more and give back less. So, since you don't understand that, you can't see how many of us are dubious about the election. You are pathetic.
Posted by: REBEL on November 14, 2007 09:56 AMNot sure anything needs to be added to your post. It truly speaks for itself.
Would you mind telling me how you can trust a guy who admitted to lining his own pockets with donors' money? Why do folks continue to believe/trust him? It seems like absuse syndrome...the more one gets abused, the more loyalty they show. Just weird.
PS...check out the vote totals...here are counties that are supporting 4204 -- impressive that King County "fraud" extends so far. Give me a break:
King
Jefferson
Spokane
San Juan
Snohomish
Thurston
Whitman
Whatcom
And Asotin trails by six votes
I still believe we/all of us need to go to the polls to vote on election day. Absentees must be for those who can't go or will be out of town. Absentees must be the exception rather than the rule.
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2007 10:29 AMAs an "amendment to the constitution" EHJR 4204 is NOT constrained by the "two subject" rule which all other bills are held to.
Maybe, therefore, we could change the entire State Constitution with a single vote.
I certainly do remember hearing one comment about the change in the turnout validation requirement in the discussion and advertising about 4204.
I still maintain that the public "did not understand" the legislation.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 01:41 PMI Meant to say, "I certainly do NOT remember hearing one comment on the change in the turnout validation in the discussion and advertising about 4204".
Living in Pierce County, Washington's capitol of low-turnout elections, I can't remember a single instance. The back of my mind says something about Queets-Clearwater having failed one because of this, but my mind is probably making that up.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 14, 2007 02:00 PMThank you.
Though the stat you provide is misleading, you've helped me illustrate an important point. While many levies fail in the first round, they are brought back under the emergency clause in a special election.
Statewide in the last two decades 92% of levies have passed. In Seattle 98% of levies have passed.
In the future ALL levies will pass first time, pretty much regardless of the money demanded.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 02:17 PMYou know the amount the schools can ask for for operating levies is capped -- for those districts at the highest levy rate, it's around 25% of the total school budget.
So, your comment about "regardless of the money demanded" is not entirely accurate, at the limit is set by the state and capped at this relatively low rate.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 14, 2007 03:15 PMIn Kitsap County, South Kitsap School district had some issues for a few years also. One of the votes was negated by turnout. I believe this was one just after a Presidential Election, which had a large turnout. This levy was re-run later in the year (or may have been the next year), after a lower turnout general election. In South Kitsap, the other periennial (sp?) is school bond issues. They have been trying for 15 plus years to build a second high school, which always passes the majority test, but fails the 60% level. This has left the school district with the largest (or one of the top three, depending on school year) high schools in the state (2600+ students). They could split the high school into two 4A schools, if they could just pass a bond issue.
One of the problems these two districts have is a lot of waterfront property owners (they both have a large amount of waterfront areas). Most of these owners have bought their property over 20 years ago (pre-region property boon), and are faced with ever increasing values, just because they own waterfront. In Peninsula School District, much of the waterfront is 750K plus. Therefore, no one wants to raise their rate even more, even though its not the schools that are taking the largest portion of the tax.
I think one of the issues this region needs to face ever increasing assessment values by counties. I have no problem with them reassessing property upon sale, or even when someone refinances. I do have a problem with them reassessing properties for individuals that have bought and kept the property to live on. I think that as long as someone lives on the property the assessment shouldn't go up, other than normal Cost of Living, unless they decide to refinance (1st or 2nd mortgage).
Posted by: tc on November 14, 2007 03:25 PMLink:
http://www.peninsula.wednet.edu/district/levyResult.asp
Note: For those who feel the state adequately funds education, for PSD the levy money makes up 19% of the budget. It is unfathomable why the state does such a poor job of funding education.
Posted by: tc on November 14, 2007 03:41 PMAs tc@40 said, too many homeowners are getting taxed out of their homes that they want to live in due to absurd assessments. That is what fueled Prop 13, and lawmakers in California, as much as they'd love to, won't repeal it due to its popularity with the people of the state.
More on Prop 13 here:
Posted by: Smoley on November 14, 2007 04:40 PMYou've brought up another good point.
Seattle is already taxing Seattleites at the maximum 25%, and passing virtually ALL their levies.
The education industry has nowhere left to go.
Watch for some kind of State Constitutional amendment or a change to the city charter to allow that 25% lid to be lifted.
I expect that this issue will be voted on in a Special Election this February. Simple majority and NO turnout validation requirement.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 14, 2007 06:12 PMActually, the levy lid is a state law after the Doran decision (when Seattle sued the date). It can't be changed by city charter. It has to be changed by the legsislature...which has said they'll actually plan on LOWERING it for districts like Seattle based on the Federal Way lawsuit in the name of equity (keep everyone low, that's fair!)
SO no fears..you'll pay less for schools.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 14, 2007 07:00 PMIf it currently takes 60% to pass a school levy. How can a simple majority of 50%+1 change the law requiring 60% to pass a levy?
It would seem to me that a requirement of 60% to change the levy law would be in keeping with the spirit of the existing law.
Posted by: Snuffy on November 15, 2007 08:08 AMMaybe one should ask your question of Prop.960 - Will 960 restrict the legislature's ability to reduce taxes as well as raise them? Now wouldn't that be a BLAST. Let's say the next legislature wants to reduce state taxes by making school districts rely more on levy income now that 4204 passed, but find they can't because of 960?
Posted by: B Fair on November 15, 2007 08:40 AMNormally counting all of King County's votes takes a long time compaired to other counties in Washington, Vote-By Mail is making it take longer. We should be considering how the media portrays this situation. Not just casting blame.
I'm all for fixing King County's election system. But simply casting blame is not going to help, when the system is basically set-up to make large counties look bad.
I've written a detailed breakdown here:
How Vote By Mail makes matters worse