In June 2025, I posted an article analyzing more than a dozen Initiatives written by conservatives that had gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures, and won at the polls, only to be overturned by the Washington Supreme Court due to their failure to comply with various sections of the Washington State Constitution. In fact, over the past 24 years, there has only been one Conservative Initiative that survived a legal challenge (the Parents Rights Initiative in January 2025). On April 30, 2026, I posted a second article explaining why the 2026 Parents Rights and Girls Rights Initiatives also violated Article II, Section 37 of the Washington State Constitution – and will therefore be overturned should either of these Initiatives by passed by the voters in Fall 2026. In this article, we will once again review the Washington State Constitution requirements for drafting Initiatives and explain why the 2026 Income Tax Initiative will be overturned by the Washington Supreme Court should it be passed by the voters in Fall 2026. We will also explain why the best way to insure that an Income Tax Initiative complies with our State Constitution is to repeal the entire 2026 Income Tax law changes and not merely some of those law changes.

Three basic requirements for an Initiative to comply with the Washington State Constitution in order to survive a legal challenge

The 3 sections of our state constitution that need to be complied with are:

Article 2, Section 19, called the Single Subject Rule: “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

Article 2, Section 37 called the Full Text rule:  "No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."

This means that the full text of the law or section of law being revised by the Initiative must be included in the Initiative submitted to the Secretary of State and must be printed in full on the back of every petition. Failing to include the full text can lead to the initiative being overturned.

Article 2, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution also known as the Simple Majority Rule states in part: “a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.”

An initiative must comply with all three of the above provisions. Violating even one provision renders the entire initiative to be void. In addition, an Initiative can not silently amend or ignore any Constitutional provision.

Summary of the 2026 Millionaires Income Tax Senate Bill 6346
Here is a link to the actual 109 page Senate Bill 6346 as passed by the Washington State legislature on March 11, 2026.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6346-S.PL.pdf?q=20260515055649

Here is the summary of Senate Bill 6346 at the top of the first page:

“AN ACT Relating to investing in Washington families and businesses to fund K-12 education, health care, higher education, other essential governmental services, and the working families' tax credit, and to reduce certain sales and use taxes and certain business and occupation taxes by establishing a tax on millionaires; amending RCW 82.32.050, 82.32.060, 82.32.090, 2.10.180, 2.12.090, 2.14.100, 6.15.020, 41.24.240, 41.32.052, 41.34.080, 41.35.100, 41.37.090, 41.40.052, 41.44.240, 41.26.053, 41.28.200, 43.43.310, 82.08.0206, 82.04.4451, 82.32.045, 82.04.288, 82.04.050, 82.04.192, 82.04.050, 82.04.288, and 1.90.100; amending 2023 c 456 s 3 (uncodified); adding a new section to chapter 74.20A RCW; adding new sections to chapter 82.08 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding a new Title to the Revised Code of Washington to be codified as Title 82A RCW; creating new sections; prescribing penalties; and providing effective dates.”

In plain English, Senate Bill 6346 amends 27 existing laws, adds new sections to 3 existing laws and adds a new Title 82A to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).

Existing laws are amended by striking out words that would no longer apply and underlying words that are added to the law. To make these 31 changes, the 109 pages of Senate Bill 6346 are divided into the following 12 Parts:

Part 1 Definitions
Part 2 Determination of Tax
Part 3 Adjusted Gross Income Modifications
Part 4 Division of Income
Part 5 Estimated Tax Payments
Part 6 Crimes
Part 7 Administrative Provisions
Part 8 Application of Tax to Public Pensions
Part 9 Tax Relief
Part 10 Definitions of Retail Sales
Part 11 Clarifying Definitions of Retail Sales
Part 12 Miscellaneous

These 12 Parts are further divided into 93 sections. Each of these 93 Sections has its own title. 

Note that Parts 1 through 8 define the process for calculating the State Income tax – which is estimated to generate about $4 billion a year in annual revenue. Part 9 uses about $2 billion of the $4 billion to provide tax relief for certain low income families and certain small business owners as well as about $320 million in childcare subsidies.

All bills drafted by the legislature are reviewed by the Code Revisers office to insure they are in harmony with existing laws
It is important to note that Senate Bill 6346 was reviewed by the Washington State Code Revisers office. The Code Reviser is a State of Washington government official responsible for harmonizing the laws of the state and advising legislators on the preparation of bills.

This office was created by the Washington State legislature in 1950 and is also responsible for publishing the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The revised code of Washington is used by judges to determine and enforce Washington State laws. The Code Reviser’s office also publishes an 87 page Bill Drafting Guide which was revised in 2025 and explains how to draft bills that comply with our State Constitution and can be harmonized with existing Washington State laws. The Code Reviser employs a professional staff of about 40 people.

On page 12 of the Bill Drafting Guide, the Code Reviser shows how to write a bill or initiative that repeals more than one section of existing state laws:

Repealing more than one section of the RCW. Use subsection groupings, cite each RCW section to be repealed, the section caption, and its session law history, from most current to original. For example:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

(1) RCW 70A.210.040 (Actions by municipalities validated) and 1975 c 6 s 4;

(2) RCW 70A.210.050 (Municipalities—Revenue bonds for pollution control facilities—Authorized—Construction— Sale, conditions—Form, terms) and 1983 c 167 s 174, 1975 c 6 s 3, & 1973 c 132 s 5;

(3) RCW 70A.210.060 (Proceeds of bonds are separate trust funds—Municipal treasurer, compensation) and 1975 c 6 s 2; and

(4) 2002 c 301 s 1 (uncodified)

Note that only the titles of the laws or parts of laws being repealed need to be included. Sadly, the Income Tax Initiative fails to include any of the titles of laws being repealed. On page 40 of the Bill Drafting Guide, the Code Reviser states:

Amending without setting forth in full—Amendments to sections by reference.

(i) Article II, section 37 of the state Constitution provides, "No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."

The purpose of this constitutional provision is to inform the legislature and the public as to the nature and effect of proposed and enacted statutes. It is not intended to restrict or hamper the legislature, but to regulate the method of enactment.

(ii) This is an example of amending a section by mere reference:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter

43.21A RCW to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 15.54.480, fertilizer inspection fees must be deposited into the water quality account.

Generally, this requirement does not apply to supplemental acts that do not modify or alter the original act in any way, to acts that merely add new sections to an existing act, or to acts complete in themselves, not purporting to be amendatory, but that by implication amend other legislation on the same subject. On the other hand, the courts are equally emphatic that if an act is not complete in itself and is clearly amendatory of a former statute, it falls within the constitutional inhibition whether it purports on its face to be amendatory or an independent act…

In Washington Education Assoc. v. State 93 Wn.2d 37, 40-41 (1980), the court expressed the issue with two questions:

(A) Is the new enactment such a complete act that the scope of the rights or duties created or affected by the legislative action can be determined without referring to any other statute or enactment?

(B) Would a straight-forward determination of the scope of rights or duties under the existing statutes be rendered erroneous by the new enactment?

How to read a particular law in the Revised Code of Washington
The RCW is a three-tier structure: Titles, Chapters, and Sections:
Title — The broadest grouping of subjects. The current RCW contains 91 active titles. Title 82 covers Excise Taxes and Title 84 covers Property Taxes. Senate Bill 6346 created a new Title called 82A.
Chapter — Each title is subdivided into chapters addressing a specific subtopic. Title 82 contains more than 60 chapters such as retail sales tax (RCW 82.08) and capital gains tax (RCW 82.87).
Section — A section contains the operative text of a single statutory provision. Sections are cited in the format RCW [Title].[Chapter].[Section] — for example, RCW 82.87.020 identifies Title 82, Chapter 87, Section 020, which defines capital gains.

An example of an Initiative with a properly stated repeal section

In 2016, Initiative 1464 was a 23 page Initiative that included a section repealing two laws. Here is the summary:

AN ACT Relating to accountability of Washington's system of electoral politics to the people; amending RCW 42.17A.400, 42.17A.430, 42.17A.445, 42.17A.645, 42.17A.470, 42.17A.050, 42.17A.750, 42.17A.755, 42.17A.765, and 42.17A.125; adding new sections to chapter 42.17A RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.32 RCW; creating new sections; repealing RCW 82.08.0273 and 42.17A.550; prescribing penalties; and making appropriations.

On Page 22, the repeal section, the Initiative stated:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 30. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

(1) RCW 82.08.0273 (Exemptions—Sales to nonresidents of tangible personal property, digital goods, and digital codes for use outside the state—Proof of nonresident status—Penalties) and 2014 c 140 s 17, 2011 c 7 s 1, 2010 c 106 s 215, 2009 c 535 s 512, 2007 c 135 s 2, 2003 c 53 s 399, 1993 c 444 s 1, 1988 c 96 s 1, 1982 1st ex.s. c 5 s 1, & 1980 c 37 s 39; and

(2) RCW 42.17A.550 (Use of public funds for political purposes) and 2008 c 29 s 1 & 1993 c 2 s 24.

Note that in keeping with the advice from the Code Revisers Bill Drafting Guide, only the titles of the laws or sections of laws being repealed were included. Still, these brief descriptions can alert a voter about the topic of the law or section of law which the voter can then further research if the voter is interested in that topic.

 

Problems with Initiative 26-645 – The Income Tax Initiative
Initiative 26-645 which can be downloaded from this page by scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking on IP26-645, View Complete Text.

Here is the Ballot Title of the Initiative:
Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes.

This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define “income.”

Here is the Ballot Measure Summary: “This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual’s income; and define income as “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.” It would also define “individual” as a natural person for purposes of excise taxes.“

In contrast with the 109 page Income Tax bill, the Income Tax Initiative is only 4 pages long. Here is the summary of the Initiative on the first page:

On page 2 is another summary of the parts of the Act which are repealed:

Note that there is no explanation of what each section being repealed states. Here is an alternative that would have at least given voters a clue as to what was in each section by including at least the titles of each section:

Sec. 1. INTENT
Sec. 101. DEFINITIONS.
Sec. 102. UNDEFINED TERMS—CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Sec. 201. TAX IMPOSED—RATES.
Sec. 202. DISTRIBUTION OF TAX REVENUES.
Sec. 203. CREDIT FOR INCOME TAXES DUE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

Sec. 204. CREDIT FOR BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION AND PUBLIC UTILITY TAXES.
Sec. 205. CREDIT FOR WASHINGTON CAPITAL GAINS TAXES.
Sec. 206. CREDIT FOR PASS-THROUGH ENTITY TAX PAYMENTS.

Here is a screen shot of the remaining sections being repealed on page 3:

The problem with pages 1, 2 and 3 of the Initiative is that the voters have no idea of the actual text in all of these sections that are being repealed.

At the bottom of page 3 is a new section called DEFINITIONS:

Finally, here is a screen shot of page 4 which includes four new sections.

In summary, if Initiative 645 is passed by the voters and certified by the Washington Supreme Court as complying with our State Constitution, it would repeal all sections of Senate Bill 6346 from Section 101 to Section 814 but would leave in place Sections 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1101. 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107. Then it would repeal Sections 1201, 1203, 1208, 1209 and 1210 while leaving in place Sections 1202, 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1207.

Again, the problem with failure to include the actual text of all of these sections - or at least the titles of these sections - is that voters have no idea of what is actually being repealed from the Income Tax bill versus what is in the sections being retained. It is only by carefully reading each of the above sections in the original bill and comparing each section to the Initiative that a voter might learn that the Initiative would repeal the $4 billion per year in Income Tax provisions in Part 2 but retain the $2 billion per year in Tax relief provisions in Parts 9, 10 and 11. The tax relief provisions are the extension of the Working Families Tax Credit, the expansion of the Small Business Tax Exemption and the increase in Child Care subsidies.

However, Section 1 Intent Item #11, at the bottom of Page 3 and top of Page 4 states in part: “The legislature further intends that the tax imposed under this act operate together with certain tax reductions and tax credits enacted by this act as an integrated reform of the state tax code, and that repeal or invalidation of section 201 of this act would reinstate certain sales and use tax on items made exempt by this act and repeal working families tax credits and small business tax credits enacted by this act.”

The Initiative repeals Section 1 and repeals the Income Tax in section 201 - but does not repeal the billions of dollars in Tax Relief offered in Section 9 10 and 11. If the Initiative were approved, it would either lead to a $2 billion hole in the state budget – or the repeal of the $2 billion in Tax Relief supposedly retained in the Initiative.

In addition, the Initiative appears to silently repeal the Capital Gains tax. Look carefully at the Definition of Income in the New Section 3 on page 3 of the Initiative:

“Income” means any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property or other source.”

Thus, the Income Tax Initiative is clearly in violation of Article 2, Section 37 of our State Constitution which states:  "No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."

This means that the full text of the law or section of law being revised or amended by the Initiative must be included in the Initiative submitted to the Secretary of State and must be printed in full on the back of every petition. Failing to include the full text of the law or section of law being revised will lead to the initiative being overturned.

The Income Tax Initiative does the opposite of what is required. Instead of including the full text, it merely indicates the Section numbers being repealed – and says nothing about the Section numbers in Senate Bill 5346 which are not being repealed. Voters are left in the dark about what will happen to billions of dollars in new tax credits created by Senate Bill 5346. The Initiative also hides the fact that it is repealing the capital gains tax.

Washington Supreme Court rulings on Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington State Constitution

In 1975, the legislature passed a bill which silently amended an existing state law by being slipped into a 45-page appropriations bill only by reference to the law being amended without including the actual text of the law being amended. In Flanders v. Morris, (1977), this type of silent amendment was ruled to violate Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington state constitution. Here are quotes from this ruling:

“The reason for requiring amendatory legislation to set out the statute in full was stated in the 1959 Washington Toll Bridge Authority case, quoting from State ex rel. Gebhardt v. Superior Court, 15 Wn.2d 673, 685, 131 P.2d 943, 949 (1942):

"The section of our constitution above referred to was undoubtedly framed for the purpose of avoiding confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty in the statutory law through the existence of separate and disconnected legislative provisions, original and amendatory, scattered through different volumes or different portions of the same volume. Such a provision, among other things, forbids amending a statute simply by striking out or inserting certain words, phrases, or clauses, a proceeding formerly common, through which laws became complicated and their real meaning often difficult of ascertainment. The result desired by such a provision is to have in a section as amended a complete section, so that no further search will be required to determine the provisions of such section as amended."

“Another important purpose of Const. art. 2, § 37, not mentioned above, is the necessity of insuring that legislators are aware of the nature and content of the law which is being amended and the effect of the amendment upon it. “

In 1982, the foundational framework for evaluating Article 2, Section 37 challenges was set in Washington Education Association v. State (1982). In this decision, the Washington Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine if legislation unconstitutionally amends an existing law without setting it forth at full length:

Part 1 question: Does the new legislative enactment or Initiative change the scope of rights or duties under an existing statute? In other words, does the Initiative amend existing laws or is it a “complete” and independent act which does not amend any existing laws? If the Initiative amends existing laws, then it must comply with Article 2, Section 37 and include the complete text of laws being amended.

Part 2 question: Can the straightforward determination of rights and duties under the prior enactment still be made without reference to the new law, or does the new law render the old law's straightforward determination erroneous?

If the enactment requires a reader to flip back and forth between multiple statutes to decipher what the law actually says and does, it violates Section 37.

First, the Income Tax Initiative amends existing laws and is not a complete or independent law. This Article 2, Section 37 applies. Second, by amending or repealing many sections in the existing income tax law while leaving many other sections in place, the Income Tax Initiative by failing to include the complete text, requires several hours of flip back and forth between multiple statutes to decipher what the law actually says and does.

In 2007, in a case called Washington Citizens Action of Washington v. State, the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 747, which limited annual property tax levy increases to 1%, for violating Article 2, Section 37. The court ruled that the initiative’s text claimed to reduce the property tax levy limit from 2% to 1%, but it actually amended existing laws that set the cap at 6%, thus failing to disclose the true impact and accurately set forth the law being amended.

Here are quotes from this ruling:

“Article II, section 37 is intended both to ensure disclosure of the general effect of the new legislation and to show its specific impact on existing laws in order to avoid fraud or deception.”

“Citizens or legislators must not be required to search out amended statutes to know the law on the subject treated in a new statute. Under article II, section 37, a new statute must explicitly show how it relates to statutes it amends… Thus, a significant purpose of article II, section 37 is to ensure that those enacting an amendatory law are fully aware of the proposed law's impact on existing law.”

“Washington Constitution article II, section 37 requires the legislature to set forth the full length of the relevant act or section to be amended… The text of the initiative misled voters about the substantive impact of the initiative on existing law… The purpose of article II, section 37 is to avoid misleading voters or legislators as to the effect an initiative will have on existing law. “

“Article II, section 37 was designed to protect voters and legislators from confusing or misleading information and to maintain the integrity of the law-making process… We have typically analyzed, as an initial matter, whether the legislation at issue is amendatory of prior acts or complete in and of itself, thereby making the new legislation exempt from the article II, section 37 requirement. “

“First, the court must determine whether the bill is such a complete act that the scope of the rights created or affected by the bill can be ascertained without referring to any other statute or enactment. Second, would a determination of the scope of the rights under the existing statutes be made erroneous by the bill?”

“The purpose of the second prong is to ensure that those impacted by a particular existing law can evaluate the impact of the proposed amendment on that existing law.”

“Nothing about the test speaks to whether a clearly amendatory act such as this one has adequately or correctly set forth the law that it seeks to amend. Applying the above test, we conclude that the parties were correct to conclude I-747 is amendatory in character and thus article II, section 37 is applicable… The purpose of article II, section 37 is to avoid misleading those voting on a proposed law by ensuring disclosure of the general effect of the new legislation by showing its specific impact on existing laws. Because article II, section 37 is intended to protect those who are to vote on amendatory legislation from fraud and deception, we consider compliance with the provision at the time of the operative vote. “

The only exception to Article 2 Section 37 are “complete” acts. Here is an example of the “complete act” exception:

In 2000, voters passed Initiative 713 which banned certain kinds of traps for catching wildlife. This Initiative was challenged by a group which claimed that it violated Article 2, Section 37. In 2003, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt v State (2003) concluding that Initiative 713 complied with Article 2, Section 37.

Here are quotes from this ruling:

“The purpose of section 37 is to "protect the members of the legislature and the public against fraud and deception; not to trammel or hamper the legislature in the enactment of laws." Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. Lyttaker, 59 Wash. 76, 82, 109 P. 316 (1910). An act is exempt from section 37 requirements if the act is complete, independent of prior acts, and stands alone on the particular subject of which it treats.”

“Is I-713 Amendatory of Prior Acts or Complete? An act is amendatory in character, rather than complete, if it changes the scope or effect of a prior statute, and therefore must comply with section 37.”

“First, the court must determine whether the bill is such a complete act that the scope of the rights created or affected by the bill can be ascertained without referring to any other statute or enactment. Id. Second, would a determination of the scope of the rights under the existing statutes be made erroneous by the bill?”

“Citizens contend that I-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute. This, Citizens urge, is directly contrary to the purpose behind section 37 which is to "avoid confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty in the statutory law through the existence of separate and disconnected legislative provisions, original and amendatory, scattered through different volumes or different provisions of the same volume."

“Under the first prong of the test, the effect of I-713 is readily ascertainable from the words of the statute alone. By its own terms, I-713 clearly bans the use of body-gripping traps to trap any animal for recreation or commerce in fur, or for any other purpose without engaging the special permit process provided… The first prong of the test is satisfied, i.e., the scope of the rights created or affected by I-713 can be ascertained without referring to any other statute or enactment.”

“As to the second prong, Citizens vie for a strict interpretation of section 37 and its requirements, contending that I-713 fails because it does not set forth statutes that it amends… They argue that I-713 creates ambiguity as to RCW 77.36.030, leaving a landowner who reads RCW 77.36.030 unaware of what his rights are regarding trapping problem animals.”

“(But) I-713 does not change a landowner's right to trap; it regulates the types of traps that may be used. In this way, the initiative does not alter preexisting rights or duties to an impermissible degree.”

What would a Constitutionally valid Income Tax repeal Initiative look like?

The secret to a valid repeal Initiative is to repeal the entire act, namely to repeal all of Senate Bill 5346 – with no additions or subtractions. If done this way, there would be no silent amendments to worry about and no budget conflicts to overcome. As with a Referendum, voters would easily understand that the law was being returned to the law that existed prior to the enactment of the bill. This simple approach has the further benefit of reducing the risk of the Initiative being in violation of Article 2, Section 19 (the Single Subject rule) as the legislature has a huge staff of attorneys in the Code Revisers office to help warn them if a bill needs to be split into two bills to comply with this Constitutional provision.

What will be the end result for this fatally flawed Income Tax Initiative?

The Income Tax bill is so widely opposed that it should have no trouble getting the 400,000 signatures in the next 40 days. It is likely that volunteers will be able to collect at least 100,000 signatures and $3 million from a few wealthy people will supply the other 300,000 signatures needed by using paid signature gatherers.

If it makes it to the Fall 2026 ballot, the Income Tax repeal Initiative is likely to be approved by the voters by a wide margin. Within a week of passing the voters, the Initiative will be challenged by some group that will certainly refer to Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington state constitution. They will point out that the Income Tax Initiative did not even include the Titles of the Sections that were repealed. It was just a bunch of Section numbers.

As with the Natural Gas Initiative, a King County judge will rule that the Initiative was unconstitutional. The BIAW and or Lets Go Washington will appeal to the Washington Supreme Court – which will affirm the lower court ruling in a years long process that only benefits a couple of attorneys.

But in addition to the Income Tax Initiative, two other poorly written Initiatives will be on the ballot and likely passed by the voters. Both of these Initiatives also violate Article 2, Section 37 as both silently amend and conflict with existing state laws as I have explained in this article.

These two Initiatives will also be challenged and rejected by our Supreme Court. To add insult to injury, in the next few months, there will be a ruling on the Natural Gas Initiative – which will also be held to violate Article 2, Section 37. Thus by the beginning of the 2028 statewide and national election, conservatives will have lost four major Initiatives simply due to a failure to respect Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington state constitution.

Consequences of a series of poorly written Initiatives
Over the past 26 years, conservative volunteers have spent tens of thousands of hours and invested tens of millions of dollars in trying to pass more than 20 conservative Initiatives. Only one of these Initiatives was able to withstand a legal challenge (the Parents Rights Initiative in 2024). But even this Initiative was voided in 2025 by House Bill 1296. Imagine what would happen if a baseball team or a football team went zero for twenty? At a bare minimum, they would be looking for a new manager.

But also imagine what would have happened if conservatives did a better job of writing Initiatives. I few real Initiative victories might result in better policies taking effect in our state – and less out of control tax and spend policies. At the very least, some real victories would cause the crazies who run Olympia to think twice before passing radical laws.

But imagine of all of the volunteer hours and millions of dollars spent getting signatures were instead spent on electing conservative candidates to the legislature – or electing a more conservative governor. Instead, what we have seen for the past 26 years is the longest and worst losing streak in Washington State political history.

My mom used to say: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. “

How many times do we need to be fooled by badly written Initiatives before we demand changes to this entire process? Here are two specific proposals that can be used by any county political organization to help avoid another repeat of the Income Tax Initiative fiasco.

Better Process for writing Initiative… An Initiative drafting committee
Right now, the Washington State Republican Party has an Election Integrity Committee that meets every month – and they are doing great work on improving the accuracy of our elections here in Washington state. It would be an easy matter to form an Initiative Drafting committee and recruit volunteers willing to learn about recent Washington Supreme Court rulings on badly written Initiatives.

This committee could review potential Initiatives to insure that they comply with Article 2, Section 19 and Article 2, Section 37 – and make the changes needed to make sure that conservative Initiatives complied with our State Constitution before being sent to the various county organizations.

This would be dramatically better than the current unreliable system where a single person writes the Initiative and submits it to the Secretary of State – typically without any public review of the Initiative before it is submitted to the Secretary of State. Initiatives like laws should go though at least some kind of committee review and improvement process.

 

Better Process for endorsing Initiatives… An Initiative Endorsement committee
Most county political organizations have committees for endorsing candidates. But they apparently endorse Initiatives without even the slightest of concerns as to whether they comply with the Washington State Constitution. Instead of rubber stamping what ever state leaders put out, it would be better for accountability for each county to have its own Initiative Endorsement Committee which can make independent recommendations after hearing from both supporters and opponents of any given Initiative.

Addressing the Real Problem… Out of Control State Spending
“We do not have an income problem. We have a spending problem.”
Chris Gregoire, Former Washington Governor, May 6, 2026

The real problem with the Income Tax Initiative is that it will not only suck another $4 billion out of our economy, it will also give our insane legislature another $4 billion in tax dollars to further expand our extremely bloated and extremely corrupt state government.

The Washington State budget has skyrocketed in just the past 14 years from about $15 billion per year in 2012 to more than $45 billion in 2026. This tripling in the size of state government has been accompanied by a tripling in state taxes – and this is before the added $4 billion from the Income Tax – which does not even take effect until 2029.

By comparison, the population of Washington increased from 7 million in 2012 to 8 million today – a total increase of 14%. Total Inflation in Washington state since 2012 according to the BLS Consumer Price Index for all Items in Seattle as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank on May 25, 2026 was 58% (rising from an Index of 240 to 380). The total increase for both population and inflation was 72% - meaning that any rational budget would be about $20 billion a year – not $45 billion a year.

The real solution to this out-of-control state spending is to dramatically reduce the size of our state government – for example, by cutting government spending in half or more… and to support real tax reform – for example by cutting the sales tax in half and by cutting property taxes in half. Even this reform would only return us to the huge state government we had back in 2012.

 

Three Constitutional proposals to cut state taxes in half and cut state government waste fraud and abuse in half
Instead of continuing to ignore the Washington State Constitution, conservative leaders should promote tax reform policies to comply with our State Constitution and help middle class families.

Constitutional proposal #1 An Initiative to honor Article 9, Sections 1 and 2 of our State Constitution
Article 9, Sections 1 and 2 of our State Constitution requires State funded and locally controlled public schools. Instead, our legislature has passed a series of unconstitutional laws over the past 10 years which have led to locally funded and state controlled public schools.

In the 1980’s, our Supreme Court ruled that local “enrichment” levies could not exceed 10% of state school funding. Yet since 2019, the local operating cost increased from 12% to 15% of school funding – costing local homeowners an additional billion dollars a year. But this is just the tip of the ice berg. In the 1980’s, the state paid for about 90% of school construction costs and local homeowners paid the other 10%. Today, that responsibility has been turned upside down with local homeowners being forced to cover 90% of school construction costs while the state only pays 10%. Combined, this transfer of the school funding burden has led to huge 54% increase in local property taxes in just the past 6 years.

These huge property tax increases will drive up monthly rental costs and drive many families out of their homes. Washington state is already one of the least affordable states to live in the entire nation. Whether families rent or own their home, the last thing families need is a huge increase in state taxes. Families urgently need property tax relief that honors Article 9, Sections 1 and 2 of our State Constitution.

Constitutional proposal #2 An Initiative to honor Article 7, Section 10 of our State Constitution

We need an Initiative to restore the only property tax break allowed by our State Constitution – the Homestead Exemption for Retired Persons.

Article VII, Section 10 states: “The following tax exemption shall be allowed as to real property: The legislature shall have the power, by appropriate legislation, to grant to retired property owners relief from the property tax on the real property occupied as a residence by those owners.”

It is a fact that many retired persons are forced to sell their homes because they are living on a fixed income and can not afford the ever increasing property taxes. The median home value in Washington state is currently $600,000 and is increasing rapidly. This is 50% higher than the national average home value which is about $400,000. We should begin by exempting the first $400,000 of home value for any retired person who is over the age of 65 with the goal of eventually exempting the first $600,000 of home value for any retired person over the age of 65.

Reducing Property Taxes Helps Families with Children
The current property tax rate in Washington state is over one percent meaning that the average family faces a property tax bill of at least $6,000 per year or $500 per month. If we can roll this property tax bill back to under $3,000 per year (which is about what it was 20 years ago), we can save the average family $250 per month. This will not only allow families to put food on the table, but it will allow them to retain their family home and allow their children to remain in their local schools and retain their friendships with other local children. Many studies have shown that one of the best ways to maintain childhood mental health is by providing children with a stable home and community environment. Instead of driving families out of their homes with excessive property tax increases, we should be helping them stay in their homes by greatly reducing their property taxes.

Constitutional Proposal #3 An Initiative to lower child care costs
Anyone needing childcare in Washington state knows that the cost of childcare has skyrocketed during the past 9 years. The average cost of childcare providers in Seattle is now $1500 per month – or $18,000 per year. In East King County, the cost is over $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. The average cost in the rest of our State is $1000 per month or $12,000 per year. The average family in Washington now pays 18% of their income on childcare. This is double what families used to pay for childcare here in Washington.

This huge increase in the cost of child care in the past 9 years was caused by a 264 page monster bill regulating child care called House Bill 1661 passed by our insane legislature in 2017.

This bill created the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) or the Child Care Gestapo to oversee all state-licensed child care in our state. This bill essentially wiped out almost half of the local in-home child care providers – folks who were not able or willing to jump through all of the state regulation hoops.

It used to be that about half of all childcare (or about 100,000 slots) was provided by informal local In Home “mom and pop” Childcare providers – with the other half provided by large national chain corporations (another 100,000 slots).

In 2019, the Washington State Child Care Collaborative Task Force commissioned a survey of Washington parents. They found that Washington state had the third highest child care cost in the nation. They also found that the number of Child Care slots had declined by 20% by 2019 from about 220,000 to 180,000. This entire decline of 40,000 slots was due to small local In Home Childcare providers deciding that the massive regulations were simply not worth it. Put in plain English, while the national corporation childcare providers did not decline at all, there was a decline of 40% in the number of local In Home Childcare providers – from about 100,000 slots to about 60,000 slots.

As a consequence, half of all parents surveyed in 2019 stated they were unable to find any openings at any price near either their home or work. One in four said they could simply not afford child care. This has led to 135,000 parents either quitting their jobs or being fired – simply because of being unable to work because they could not find anyone to care for their child.

The cost to employers of parents either quitting their jobs or missing work was over $2 billion per year. This was in addition to the cost to parents of having their child care costs doubled. And it was in addition to the cost to tax payers of paying for the child care gestapo regulators.

The legislature’s “solution” to this problem has been to subsidize child care to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year., But this just created a new problem called “ghost Childcare programs.” These are criminal outfits ripping off the tax payers to pay the child care for children who do not exist in day cares that do not exist.

Our Solution to the Childcare Crisis is to eliminate the regulations that caused this problem in the first place. This childcare crisis was created by the assumption that all parents and all childcare providers abuse children. This assumption is not correct. The vast majority of parents and In Home Childcare providers do not abuse their children. If a parent or childcare provider does abuse a child, they can and should be reported to Child Protective Services (CPS). There is simply no need for another massive State agency whose sole function is to drive up the price of childcare. Loving parents and devoted In Home Childcare providers should not have to be driven into poverty or out of business by a few bad apples. Our solution is to return to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution – that all parents and childcare providers are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Deregulating In Home Childcare providers will attract thousands of local In Home Childcare providers which will bring the cost of childcare back down to where it was 9 years ago – saving families thousands of dollars every year in child care costs and restoring local community jobs in the process.

Conclusion
If you agree that it is time for real tax reform, then join our Washington Parents Network and start attending our monthly meetings which are held on the first Sunday of every month from 4 to 5 pm. Our June 2026 meeting will be on June 7^th. If you have any questions, or if you would like the link for our next meeting, email me – and please share this article with anyone you know who is interested in ending the war against our families.

Regards, David Spring M. Ed.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

It has been claimed that the Washington Supreme Court has a “double standard” on deciding whether or not an Initiative complies with the Washington State Constitution. Before we begin, I want to note that I have written articles providing a mountain of evidence on the double standards in our federal courts. Here is a link to one of these articles on liberal federal courts, such as the Ninth Circuit, grossly misinterpreting the plain meaning of Title IX.

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/title-ix-facts/why-reykdals-title-ix-lies-could-cost-taxpayers-billions

I have also written articles critical of the Washington State Supreme Court. So I am open to considering the claim that our State Courts are biased. However, if we are going to make this claim, we need to provide evidence that this claim is true. In this article, we will use two recent Washington Supreme Court rulings in favor of liberal Initiatives that were found to be constitutional to determine if this claim of a double standard on Initiatives is true. The first example is a case on a 2003 Initiative. The second example is a case on a 2012 Initiative.

Example #1: Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wn.2d 622, 630, 71 P.3d 644 (2003)

Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State refers to a Washington State Supreme Court case concerning the legality of initiative I-713 passed by the voters in 2000 that restricted certain hunting and trapping practices. The case focused on whether these initiatives violated the state's public trust doctrine, which holds that the state manages natural resources for the benefit of the public. The court ultimately upheld the initiatives, finding that the state had not relinquished its control over wildlife management and therefore did not violate the public trust doctrine.

Here is a link to this Washington Supreme Court decision:

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2003/72186-6-1.html

Here are quotes from this decision:

“Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management, on direct review to this court, claim that Initiative 713 violates Washington Constitution article II, sections 19 and 37. Finding that appellants have not shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Initiative 713 violates the constitution, we affirm the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion.”

“Citizens contend that initiatives should be given less deference than legislatively enacted bills, when reviewing for constitutional infirmities, because initiatives result from a "closed process" where "the initiative proponents are comprised of a small group of people."

“This court was clear in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State that statutes enacted through the initiative process must be shown to be unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt; they are not reviewed under more or less scrutiny than legislatively enacted bills…. Any reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. Wash. Fed'n, 127 Wash. 2d at 556, 901 P.2d 1028. Citizens must meet the same burden in proving I 713's unconstitutionality as they would for any other statute.”

“Citizens argue that the title is restrictive and violates section 19 because it impermissibly contains two subjects, trapping with body-gripping traps and killing with poisons. The State and Sponsors argue that the title addresses the single subject of humane treatment of animals, that the title is therefore general, and they respond that the title does not impermissibly deal with two subjects.”

“A more moderate interpretation, as compared to those offered by the parties, is that the title deals with banning methods of trapping and killing animals. Using the above quoted examples of general and restrictive titles to guide the determination here, I-713's title is general. I-713's title contains specific topics as well, namely, body-gripping traps and pesticides. As in Amalgamated, however, those topics are merely incidental to the general topic reflected in the title a ban on methods of trapping and killing animals. The title for I-713 is most accurately described as general and does not contain two subjects.”

“However, even if we assume, arguendo, that the title is restrictive, it is still a constitutionally valid title. The subjects of trap and pesticide use for animals are related so as not to be the individual, disjointed subjects that Citizens contend they are. The provisions in the initiative governing the types of traps and pesticides that may be used are fairly within the subject expressed in the title.”

“Citizens argue that there is no rational unity between banning body-gripping traps and the use of the pesticides because "it is completely unnecessary to ban traps in order to implement the ban on the use of these chemical compounds as pesticides… They claim that the initiative "manifests the evils" of logrolling, presumably by forcing voters to vote, in combination, on whether to ban certain traps as well as the pesticides.”

“Citizens misconstrue the analysis in Amalgamated. The language upon which Citizens deduce their "test" reads as follows: “there is no rational unity between the subjects of I-695… I-695 also has two purposes: to specifically set license tab fees at $30 and to provide a continuing method of approving all future tax increases. Further, neither subject is necessary to implement the other. I-695 violates the single-subject requirement of article II, section 19 because both its title and the body of the act include two subjects: repeal of the MVET and a voter approval requirement for (future) taxes. “

“An analysis of whether the incidental subjects are germane to one another does not necessitate a conclusion that they are necessary to implement each other, although that may be one way to do so. This court has not narrowed the test of rational unity to the degree claimed by Citizens…. the statements made in Amalgamated and City of Burien in regard to the dual subjects being unnecessary to implement the other were made to further illustrate how unrelated the two were.

“Article II, section 37 provides that "no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length." The purpose of section 37 is to "protect the members of the legislature and the public against fraud and deception; not to trammel or hamper the legislature in the enactment of laws." An act is exempt from section 37 requirements if the act is complete, independent of prior acts, and stands alone on the particular subject of which it treats. "Nearly every legislative act of a general nature changes or modifies some existing statute, either directly or by implication" but this, alone, does not inexorably violate the purposes of section 37. "Undoubtedly, modification of existing laws by a complete statute renders the existing law by itself `erroneous' in a certain sense." Only that part of an act that violates section 37 will be invalidated, provided there is a severability clause. See Amalgamated, 142 Wash. 2d at 256, 11 P.3d 762.”

“An act is amendatory in character, rather than complete, if it changes the scope or effect of a prior statute, and therefore must comply with section 37. First, the court must determine whether the bill is such a complete act that the scope of the rights created or affected by the bill can be ascertained without referring to any other statute or enactment. Id. Second, would a determination of the scope of the rights under the existing statutes be made erroneous by the bill? “

“Qualifications of that two-part test have subsequently been made. This court, in Amalgamated, cautioned against too broad of an analysis for section 37 violation and clarified that "[a] later enactment which is a complete act may very well change prior acts and yet still be exempt from the requirement of article II, section 37."

“Complete acts which (1) repeal prior acts or sections thereof on the same subject, (2) adopt by reference provisions of prior acts, (3) supplement prior acts or sections thereof without repealing them, or (4) incidentally or impliedly amend prior acts, are excepted from section 37.”

“The first prong of the test is satisfied, i.e., the scope of the rights created or affected by I-713 can be ascertained without referring to any other statute or enactment.”

“As to the second prong, Citizens vie for a strict interpretation of section 37 and its requirements, contending that I-713 fails because it does not set forth statutes that it amends. In so doing, Citizens do not argue their point in light of the second prong of the section 37 test as put forth in Amalgamated, above. Instead, they argue that I-713 creates ambiguity as to RCW 77.36.030 in three ways, leaving a landowner who reads RCW 77.36.030 unaware of what his rights are regarding trapping problem animals.”

“I-713 does not change a landowner's right to trap; it regulates the types of traps that may be used. In this way, the initiative does not alter preexisting rights or duties to an impermissible degree… the change I-713 makes to the licensing requirements of landowners and we find that that change is not of constitutional magnitude.”

“while RCW 77.36.030 goes to whether problem animals may be killed or trapped at all, I-713 imposes incidental restrictions on the manner in which they may be killed or trapped. As such, we hold that RCW 77.36.030 and I-713 are not aimed at the same subjects and, thus, I-713 stands alone on the particular subject of which it treats and therefore does not violate section 37.”

Conclusion from the first example
The above decision was 8 to 1 with Justice Sanders dissenting. Sanders essentially argued that the ruling resulted in a lack of clarity about when the Single Subject rule was violated. But I can not see a lack of clarity. I can see that the two Eyman subjects were not even remotely related while the two trapping subjects were directly related. So I think this judge made a reasonable decision.

Example #2: Wash. Ass’n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State, 174 Wn.2d 642, 652, 278 P.3d 632 (2012)

I-1183 removed the State from the business of distributing and selling spirits and wine, imposes sales-based fees on private liquor distributors and retailers, and provides a distribution of $10 million per year to local governments for the purpose of enhancing public safety programs. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the Appellants Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, Gruss, Inc. and David Grumbois did not overcome the presumption that the initiative was constitutional, and therefore the affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Initiative.

Here is a link to a PDF of the Washington Supreme Court 2012 29 page ruling:

https://cases.justia.com/washington/supreme-court/87188-4-1.pdf?ts=1396151904

Here are quotes from this ruling:

“This court was asked to determine whether Initiative 1183 (I-1183) violates the single-subject and subject-in-title rules found in article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. “

“Appellants contend that I-1183 contains multiple subjects,in violation of article II, section 19’s single-subject rule. Additionally, appellants claim that I-1183’s multiple subjects were not all expressed in the ballot title of the initiative, in violation of article II, section 19’s subject-in-title rule.”

“The parties agree that the ballot title is general, and we find so as well. I- 1183’s title indicates that it generally pertains to the broad subject of liquor. There is no violation of article II, section 19 even if a general subject contains several incidental subjects or subdivisions.”

Appellants argue that the challenged provisions lack rational unity with the general topic—which they characterize as “‘liquor privatization’”—and with one another. Appellants contend that I-1183 violates the single-subject rule because along with the general topic of liquor privatization, the initiative includes a $10 million public safety earmark, privatizes wine distribution, impacts liquor advertising, and modifies the State’s policy regarding liquor.

“Turning first to the public safety earmark, this provision is germane to the general topic of I-1183, whether that is liquor or the narrower subject of liquor privatization”

“Moreover, the legislature’s recognition of the relationship between liquor regulation and public welfare supports our finding that these issues share rational unity.”

“I-1183’s provision of funds for public safety actually has a closer nexus to the subject of liquor than does the general revenue provision that has existed since the State began regulating liquor.”

Any “‘objections to the title must be grave and the conflict between it and the constitution palpable before we will hold an act unconstitutional.’

“Intervenors rely on Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 834, 766 P.2d 438 (1989), in which this court refused to review the ballot title decision of a superior court and noted that “the public interest is served by finality in this matter.” Kreidler is inapposite to this case, however, as appellants do not challenge the result of the ballot title determination, but rather the constitutionality of the law itself. Intervenors’ interpretation of Kreidler and analogous cases would improperly constrain any constitutional challenge to initiatives to the expedited process of ballot title adjudication.”

“The phrase “license fees based on sales” is sufficient to indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of that provision of I-1183. The challenged portion of I-1183’s ballot title is not palpably misleading or false.“

Example #2 Conclusion

This decision was unanimous. There was no dissent. I also do not see any problems with this decision.

Challenge to Provide an example

So far, I have not found an example to support the claim that there is a double standard for conservative initiatives. Instead, I think the Washington Supreme Court has been fairly consistent on this issue. If folks want to continue to contend that there is a double standard, they should provide at least one example to support their claim.

There is no question that the election system in Washington state is one of the worst in the nation. The most secure voting method is local, in-person voting with paper ballots and multiple checks. Instead, Washington uses automatic voter registration with almost no checks for non-citizens and all mail-in voting with almost no checks for who is actually filling out the ballot. Equally bad, Washington uses insecure voting machines that are easily hacked to remotely change vote results and insecure “Omniballot” online vote curing processes that violate both state and federal election laws prohibiting online voting. I have for many years written reports criticizing nearly every aspect of the election process here in Washington state.

At the same time, promoting data mining schemes that do next to nothing to address these very real problems - and instead violate federal election laws and court rulings - can do more harm than good. This is one of several problems with the “Proof of Citizenship from Registered Washington Voters” Initiative. This Voter ID Initiative was discussed at a recent Washington State Republican Party Election Integrity meeting during which several people expressed serious concerns about the legality of this Initiative. Among those expressing concerns at this meeting was a County Auditor who stated that this Initiative may violate federal laws and/or federal court rulings. After this Election Integrity committee meeting, I spent several weeks doing research on federal laws and federal court rulings related to the proposed Washington Voter ID Initiative.

My concern was (and still is) that this Initiative violates federal laws and court rulings. In addition, the Washington State Republican party might waste millions of dollars and countless hours of volunteer time gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures to place the Initiative before the legislature - only to see the Initiative challenged and tossed out in federal court due to legal violations.

In this article, we will review 20 major problems with the Voter ID Initiative and then provide 11 alternatives that could save the Washington State Republican party not only a million dollars and countless hours invested by volunteers – but equally important – actually improve the accuracy of voter rolls and thereby improve our election system here in Washington state.

Problem #1 Claims that the “Voter ID Initiative was reviewed by a Thurston County judge and found to be valid” are false
Proponents of the Voter ID Initiative have claimed that the Initiative was reviewed by a Thurston County judge and found to be valid. In fact, the judge only reviewed the ballot title and summary. The judge did not review or make any ruling at all on the legality of the actual text of the Initiative. The judge clarified the title by adding a few words on July 10, 2025.

Here is the court ordered ballot title Statement of Subject :
Initiative Measure No. IL26-126 concerns heightened voter registration requirements for applicants and currently registered voters.

Here is the court ordered ballot title Concise Description:
This measure would require voters to have an enhanced driver's license or enhanced Identicard, or provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person, and would cancel registrations for voters not meeting those requirements. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Here is the court ordered Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would require voter registration applicants to have an enhanced driver"s license or enhanced identicard, or, alternatively, to demonstrate proof of US citizenship in person at their county auditor's office by providing certain types of documentary evidence, as specified by the measure. The measure imposes the same requirements on existing voters and would require cancellation of registrations for voters who have not met those requirements 14 days prior to the 2027 general election.

Problem #2 The Initiative gives preference to those who already have a Washington State “Enhanced” Drivers license
Here is a link to the 9 page PDF of this Initiative
https://www2.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_3262.pdf

Here are the six acceptable forms of ID required for for a Proof of Citizenship required in order to register to vote:

(I) a valid current Washington State Enhanced Drivers License; (or)

(ii) a valid current Washington State Enhanced Identicard; (or)

(iii) A valid current United States passport; (or)

(iv) An original United States certificate of naturalization; (or)

(v) A US Department of State consular report of birth abroad; or

(vi) An original, certified birth certificate from a US birth place, issued by a city, county, state, or territory, that contains all of the following:
(A) Full name and date of birth;
(B) Place of birth, which must be a United States location;
(C) A registrar's raised, embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal;
(D) A control or file number that the issuing authority can confirm;
(E) A registrar's signature; and
(F) The date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office.

Those with an Washington state Enhanced Drivers License or Enhanced ID Card will automatically remain in the voter rolls. Anyone without an enhanced Washington Drivers license or ID Card will be removed from the voter rolls and will be required to bring either a valid US passport or original certified birth certificate to their county auditor to get back on the voters roll.

What is an enhanced Washington Drivers License?
An “Enhanced” Drivers License requires providing additional evidence such as an original certified birth certificate. It costs $128 to get an Enhanced Drivers License for 8 years. It is mainly used by folks who fly on planes or go across the Canadian or Mexican border. It was claimed that, starting May 7, 2025, normal Washington Drivers licenses would no longer be accepted as valid forms of ID for boarding domestic flights. However, so few people have enhanced Drivers Licenses (also called Real ID), that folks can still go on domestic flights without them – but they are put in a separate line where they are asked questions like what is their address.

The percent of drivers in Washington state with enhanced drivers licenses is very low
Despite the repeated threats being made about Real ID being required over the past 17 years, many people have refused to comply. There are 5 million registered voters in Washington state. A May 6, 2025 article indicated that only 29% of Washington drivers have an enhanced drivers license. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/as-real-id-deadline-becomes-reality-wa-wait-times-stretch-really-long/

Here is the graph:

The total number of normal Washington IDs bearing a mark that says “Federal limits apply” — restricting domestic air travel without another form of Real ID — has hovered around 5 million for the past two years. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that of our 5 million voters, only about 2 million have an enhanced drivers license and will therefore not need to register in person. However, 3 million currently registered and valid Washington voters do not have an enhanced drivers license and will be required to appear in person with a valid birth certificate or a valid passport at their county auditors office to remain on the voters rolls.

Why have so many people refused to get an enhanced license?
Some people object to getting an enhanced drivers license because it costs $128 for 8 years. Some object that they are unable to get an enhanced license because they have no idea where their original Birth Certificate is. A normal Washington Drivers License now states “Federal Limits Apply.”
(See image below)

Some people have refused to get an enhanced Washington license because it contains a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) microchip, radio transmitter and antenna inside the enhanced license which connects to a biometric database.

Whatever the reason, 71% of Washington voters do not currently have an Enhanced Drivers License. Thus, 3 million people that will not be “opted in” with an Enhanced License. They will be removed from the voter rolls and will need to find their original birth certificate or a valid passport and then visit their county auditor to be put back on the voter rolls.

Even after 20 years of threatening Americans that they will not be able to get on a plane if they do not get an Enhanced Drivers License, 70% of Washington Drivers have refused to get the Enhanced Drivers License. These Washington citizens have “voted with their feet” that they are opposed to the Enhanced Drivers Licenses.

For many citizens, the problem is not the additional $180 for 8 years. Rather, it is the fact that the Enhanced License comes with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip that will remotely signal police to pull up your biographic and biometric data. Radio Frequency Identification is a wireless technology that stores and retrieves data remotely. An RFID system includes four components:

#1: An RFID tag with a microchip (an Ultra High Frequency radio transmitter).

#2: An antenna embedded into the Enhanced Drivers License

#3: An RFID signal reader (a radio receiver)

#4 A government controlled database

How the Radio Frequency Transmitter works
The RFID microchip embedded in your Enhanced Drivers license is programmed with a unique reference number that is connected by a database to your biographical and biometric data. At the border crossing, the police use an RFID radio receiver to obtain your unique the number.

The border agent then transmit this number to the Border Protection network. The network compares the reference number to government records and sends your biometric and biographical information back to the Border Patrol agent who then uses that information to ask you a series of questions to confirm that your information matches with the information in the government database.

Why Government controlled Biometric data will not provide security
In 2007, Chris Paget of San Francisco, California, showed that RFID information could be pulled from a US passport card by using only $250 worth of equipment. This suggests that with the information captured, it would be possible to clone such cards. So why are they still being pushed?

Follow the Money
In 2020, the world RFID market was worth US $12 billion, up from US $7 billion in 2012. This figure includes tags, readers, and software/services for RFID cards, labels, fobs, and all other form factors. The market value is expected to rise to US $16 billion by 2029.

Problem #3 There are no polls showing support for requiring every legal voter to get an “Enhanced” Drivers License or Real ID Card
Proponents of the Voter ID Initiative have claimed that there are polls confirming that voters would support their Voter ID Initiative. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 83% of Americans favored first time voters to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This included 96% of Republicans, 84% of Independents and 66% of Democrats.

But look more closely at the above question. The support is for first time voters to provide proof of citizenship – not for requiring ALL current voters to take extra steps to provide proof of their own citizenship. In addition, the Gallup poll did not define the term “proof of citizenship.”

Historically, Washington law has always required proof of citizenship for first time voters. For example, minors applying for a Washington Drivers License were able to provide proof of citizenship by being accompanied by a parent with an existing Washington Drivers License which confirmed that the minor was a legal citizen because their parent was a legal citizen. It is only recently that Washington laws were expanded to allow non-citizens to get Drivers Licenses and be automatically registered to vote. The problem is with the new laws – not with the existing voters.

The same 2024 Gallup poll also found that 84% of Americans favored requiring voters to provide photo ID in order to vote. This obviously requires in-person voting and is not possible with mail-in ballots. But even this Gallup poll question did not define “photo ID.” It is likely that most people were thinking of requiring a “normal” drivers license in order to vote. The Washington Voter ID Initiative would require an “Enhanced” Drivers License, also known as Real ID, or an original Birth Certificate, in order to register to vote.

But in addition, it applies to ALL VOTERS, not just first time voters. A more accurate poll question would be to ask Washington’s 5 million current voters if they want to force 3 million of them to find their Birth Certificates and bring them to their county auditor to remain on the voting rolls – because that is what the Washington Voter ID initiative really does.

Problem #4 The Voter ID Initiative also gives preference to those who already have a valid US Passport
A valid US Passport is required to travel overseas and is useful for traveling to Canada or Mexico. About 45% of Washington voters have a valid passport. But this is likely the same people who have an enhanced Drivers License. Therefore, at most 1 million people will be able to easily take their passport to their county auditor and get back on the voter rolls. But this still leaves 2 million people who will need to find their original birth certificate to get back on the voter rolls.

Problem #5 Older Americans are less likely to have a valid passport than younger Americans
A 2023 YouGov survey found that 50% of people under 30 have a valid passport but only 33% of people between ages 45 to 64 have a valid passport. Thus the age group least likely to vote (young people) have more passports while the age group most likely to vote (older people) have fewer passports. This is age discrimination.

Problem #6 About 80% of low income people do not have a valid passport
Most of those without valid passports are relatively poor people. Only 21% of people making less than 50K per year have a valid passport, while 44% of people making 50 to 100K per year have a valid passport and an amazing 64% of people making more than 100K per year have a valid passport. This is discrimination against poor people.

Problem #6 There are huge racial differences in passport ownership
55% of Hispanic Americans have passports and 42% of white Americans have passports, but only 34% of Black Americans have passports.

The fact that the Voter ID Initiative gives those with a enhanced drivers licenses and or valid passports an easier pathway to registering to vote may lead to Constitutional challenges under the 14^th Amendment for racial discrimination. (see legal rulings below).

Let’s take a closer look at who these two million people without passports or enhanced drivers licenses are. It turns out they are older people, lower income people, black people and women.

Problem #7 Many people and particularly women and homeless people have problems finding or even getting a valid Birth Certificate
A survey conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice found that more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age don’t have proof of citizenship readily available.  The survey asked respondents whether they had documents that prove their citizenship — a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers — readily available. About 8% don’t have these documents at all, often because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen. 8 percent of five million Washington voters is 400,000 voters. Who are these 400,000 voters who are most likely to be disenfranchised?

The groups most likely to be disenfranchised are homeless people and married women who have changed their surnames. Nearly 80 percent of married women adopt their partner’s surname, and some would be unable to register to vote if the name on their ID does not directly match their proof of citizenship. This point was raised by the League of Women Voters in a press release  opposing the Trump 2025 Presidential Order that is similar to the Washington Voter ID Initiative. The problem is that women are a legally protected class. This means that the government is required to protect the rights of women.

Problem #8: The Number of non-citizens registered to vote and actually voting in Washington state is very low
The actual number of non-citizens registered to vote and actually voting in Washington state is unknown. But studies done in 2017 and 2024 in Ohio found that about 800 out of 8 million voters were non-citizens and of these less than 200 actually voted.

In 2022 and 2024, Georgia conducted citizenship audits of its voter rolls. In 2024, Georgia found 20 noncitizens on the rolls by using jury declarations; nine of the 20 had voted at some point.

In 2017, Nevada conducted a statewide audit and identified 100 people statewide who presented evidence of non-citizenship while obtaining services from the DMV and completed a voter registration at the DMV. Information was given to the secretary of state's office to investigate. After investigating, that office found that 3 noncitizens had voted in 2016.

In 2019, Texas found nearly 100,000 possible foreigners on their voter rolls, of which about 58,000 may have voted in previous elections. Since 2021, Texas has removed over 6,500 potential foreign citizens from its voter rolls. Of those 6,500 foreign citizens, 1,930 actually voted. Given that Texas is about 4 times more populous than Washington, this would convert to about 500 actual illegal voters voting here in Washington.

In 2025, Iowa completed an audit of the 2024 general election and identified 277 noncitizens who were registered to vote. Of those, 35 noncitizens cast ballots that were counted.

In 2025, Michigan completed a review of motor vehicle records that identified 15 people who appear to be noncitizens that voted in the 2024 general election out of 5.7 million ballots cast.

All of the above studies can be found at this link:
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/legislative-approaches-to-ensuring-only-citizens-vote

A 2024 Oregon study found 1,260 non-citizens had registered but only 10 had voted.

Combining all 8 of these studies, a reasonable conclusion is that there are very few non-citizens voting here in Washington.

But there is a more objective way of determining the number of illegal aliens registered to vote and voting here in Washington – a method that takes into account the huge wave of 4 million illegal aliens that were allowed to enter the US between 2021 and 2024. First, we determine the number of illegal aliens in our state. According to the US Census, nearly 23 million adult non-citizens were living in the US in 2023. This is an absolute minimum because the Census doesn’t count masses of non-citizens who falsely claim to be citizens or don’t fill out Census surveys. Also, the figure of 23 million doesn’t include the masses of non-citizens who’ve entered the US illegally since 2023. Since the rate of rise between 2021 to 2023 was about one million illegal aliens per year, a reasonable estimate for 2024 is 24 million. Of these, according to the US Census, about 600,000 people living in Washington state are foreign born and not US citizens.

Next, we need to estimate the percent of non-citizens registered to vote in our state. This unfortunately is going to be a very high figure since our Department of Licensing is registering voters automatically when they get a drivers license (this is a topic we will discuss in greater detail below).

At this point, I need to disclose that during the past few years, my wife and I have hosted several legal foreign exchange students at our home and some of them have obtained a US Drivers License. Those who obtained a Washington Drivers license all got registered to vote and received a letter from Steve Hobbs congratulating them on being registered to vote. I made sure that none of these students actually voted - and eventually, all of them were removed from the voter rolls. I do not know how they were removed. But we no longer receive ballots for any of them. Still this personal experience is one reason I know our voting system in Washington is messed up.

A detailed study published in 2024 estimated that 10% to 27% of illegal aliens are registered to vote in the US. While others have criticized this study and claimed that the actual number is 1% to 10% of illegal aliens registering to vote, I have reviewed the 2024 study and concluded it was accurately done. Given how bad things are here in Washington, with the Washington Department of Licensing automatically registering non-residents, I estimate that 20% of non-residents are being registered to vote here in Washington. This would put the number of non-resident registered voters in our state at 120,000.

The final number we need to estimate is the percent of these illegally registered voters who actually voted. The percent in other states ranged from 1% in Oregon to 25% in Ohio to nearly 30% in Texas. Given that actually voting illegally in a US election is a serious crime, but also given that Washington state uses all mail in ballots, making it easier for illegal aliens to vote once they are registered, I am going to use 10% to 20% as my “best guess.” Feel free to use your own guess because the truth is that things are so bad in our state that there is no way of knowing what the number really is This estimate would put the number of illegal voters who actually vote in Washington in 2024 at 12,000 to 24,000.

Divide this number by our 49 legislative districts and we have 250 to 500 illegal voters who actually voted per legislative district. This would not be enough to swing any state house races in 2024, but it could have swung the LD 18 Senate race which was decided by less than 200 votes.

Still, regardless of how many illegally cast votes there were in the 2024 Washington state election, we need to find a way to eliminate them without disenfranchising and discriminating against tens of thousands of poor people, homeless people, black people and married women. Given how important the right to vote is, we need a solution that does not disenfranchise even a single valid Washington state voter.

We will next look into the federal laws and federal rulings that are likely violated by the Washington Voter ID Initiative.

Problem #9 Similar Proof of Citizenship laws in many other states have been ruled to be legally invalid
Between 2009 and March 2025, at least nine states passed laws specifically addressing proof of citizenship. Most are not in force due to court decisions (see Summary of Case law below for details). These laws do not all take the same approach. Some are clear that people already on the rolls are assumed to be citizens; a few ask the voter to provide proof at the time of registration; and most direct state officials – not the citizens - to verify citizenship, which means checking other data sources.

Here is a link to a summary of all of these state voter ID laws:

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/legislative-approaches-to-ensuring-only-citizens-vote

Laws requiring new registrants to show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote:
Alabama (Ala. Code § 31-13-28)
Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166)
Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-2309) (Not in force due to court decision)
Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. § 18:104)
New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:7; § 654:12) (Note: proof of citizenship is only required for new voters. Voters who are already registered do not need to provide proof of citizenship.)

Laws requiring all registrants to show documentary proof of citizenship, but only if status cannot be verified using other data:

Georgia (Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-216)
Indiana (Ind. Code § 3-7-33-4.7; § 3-7-38.2-7.3)
Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141)

Laws requiring new registrants and those updating their voter registration to show documentary proof of citizenship:

Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. § 22-3-102 effective July 1, 2025)

In short, only one or two states have enacted laws demanding existing voters to provide proof of citizenship. These state laws are new and are likely to be voided in coming court challenges.

Arizona attempts to require proof of citizenship
Arizona began attempting to require proof of citizenship decades ago. In 2004, citizens approved a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 200, requiring evidence of citizenship for voter registration. Arizona's processes have been repeatedly challenged in courts over the past two decades. A description of Arizona's current process can be found here, and a list of what is accepted documentary proof of citizenship can be found here. In brief, a person who submits valid proof of citizenship when registering, or whose citizenship can be confirmed using data from the Department of Motor Vehicles, is registered to vote in all federal state and local elections. For new registrants who use the federal form to register and have not otherwise shown proof of citizenship, Arizona provides them with a ballot of "federal only" races. In other words, Arizona maintains a bifurcated voting system.

Arizona has one list of voters who can vote on all races, and a much smaller list of "federal only" voters who have registered on the federal form and have not yet shown documentation of citizenship. Being on the "federal only" list does not mean these voters are not US citizens; it means they have not yet shown documentary proof of their citizenship. Keeping two lists, and ensuring that a voter receives the right ballot, is a major challenge that requires having staffing to implement it. A different ballot is prepared for "federal only" voters in each of Arizona's nine congressional districts.

Summary of Federal Case rulings that state attempts to over-rule federal voting rights laws are illegal

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court (2013)
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Arizona law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote violated the National Voter Registration Act. The court held that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to accept a federal voter registration form, which asks registrants to affirm their citizenship, but does not require documentary proof of citizenship. Also, the NVRA allows states to develop their own registration forms for state and federal elections, but the federal form by itself must always suffice to register a voter to vote in federal elections. Finally, states must accept the federal form without requiring registrants to submit any information beyond what the form (and any approved state-specific instructions) requires.

Fish v. Kobach, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2016)
In this case, a federal court held that a Kansas law requiring individuals to submit documentary proof of citizenship when using a federal voter registration form violated the NVRA. The court held that the NVRA requires states to make a version of a federal voter registration form available during the driver’s license application process. The NVRA says that the form provided with a driver’s license application must require “only the minimum amount of information necessary to” enable the state to determine a voter’s eligibility. The NVRA already required registrants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on the federal form. This met the “minimum amount of information” requirement and the court ruled that Kansas’s law requiring additional documentary proof of citizenship went too far.

League of Women Voters v. Harrington, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2021)
In this case, a federal district court struck down the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s decision to include state-specific instructions requiring documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms for Alabama, Georgia and Kansas. When the lawsuit began in 2016, all three states had documentary proof of citizenship laws on the books, though the court noted that it was unclear whether Alabama and Georgia were actively enforcing their citizenship laws.

In its final opinion, the court held that the NVRA requires the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission to determine whether a state-specific instruction on the federal form is necessary to enable the state to assess voter eligibility. The EAC’s decisions violated the NVRA because the agency failed to determine whether the Alabama, Georgia and Kansas proof of citizenship instructions were necessary to confirm voter eligibility. The EAC’s decisions violated the Administrative Procedures Act because the agency did not follow the proper decision-making process.

New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan, Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (2024 – ongoing)
These lawsuits challenge a New Hampshire law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. As of March 2025, there is no court ruling on these cases yet. Both lawsuits argue that New Hampshire’s 2024 law places an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Both lawsuits argue that this undue burden comes in part from the fact that New Hampshire removed the option to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, instead requiring all voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. The Coalition for Open Democracy argues that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.

Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 9^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (2025)
In this case, several organizations and government entities filed challenges to multiple Arizona laws. In February 2025, a federal appeals court held that several of the challenged laws ran afoul of the NVRA, the federal Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit 156 page opinion can be found here. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1390971/dl

The court made the following rulings on Arizona’s proof of citizenship laws:
Arizona’s law requiring individuals who register to vote with the federal form to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to vote by mail or vote for president violated the NVRA and Arizona’s law requiring state voter registration forms to be rejected if the voter does not provide documentary proof of citizenship violated an agreement from a previous court case that directs Arizona to register such voters as federal-only voters.

League of Women Voters v Trump
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, also called Voter Roll Integrity and Citizenship Verification. Here is a quote from this Presidential Order:

“Sec. 2. Enforcing the Citizenship Requirement for Federal Elections.
To enforce the Federal prohibition on foreign nationals voting in elections:
(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508:
(A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3); and
(B) a State or local official to record on the form the type of document that the applicant presented as documentary proof of US citizenship, including the date of the document's issuance, the date of the document's expiration (if any), the office that issued the document, and any unique identification number associated with the document as required by 52 U.S.C. 21083(a)(5)(A), while taking appropriate measures to ensure information security.

(ii) "documentary proof of United States citizenship" shall include a copy of:
(A) a United States passport;
(B) an identification document compliant with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States;
(C) an official military identification card; or
(D) a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen.”

Several groups filed federal complaints. These complaints were all consolidated in 2025 League of Women Voters v Trump

On April 24, 2025, a federal judge issued a 120 page ruling which can be downloaded from this link:

The ruling stated that Congress made two laws that regulate what states can and can not do. The Trump Presidential Order violated these two laws. Only Congress has the power to change laws passed by Congress.

Here are quotes from this ruling:

“In 1993, Congress exercised its Elections Clause authority to regulate federal elections by enacting the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). Congress’s stated purposes in enacting the NVRA included “establishing procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” helping officials at all levels of government implement the Act’s requirements “in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office,” “protecting the integrity of the electoral process,” and ensuring the maintenance of “accurate and correct voter registration rolls.”

“The NVRA established a baseline set of voter registration procedures for federal elections that every State must implement, alongside “any other method of voter registration provided for under State law.”

For example, the NVRA requires that States allow people to apply for voter registration when applying for drivers’ licenses. The NVRA also requires each State to “accept and use” a standard federal “mail voter registration form” (the “Federal Form”)… the application must verify an applicant’s eligibility under state law through an “attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement[s]” that “requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.”. The Form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.”

“Moreover, when enacting the NVRA, Congress considered and rejected a proposal that would have allowed States to impose exactly the kind of documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement that the President’s Executive Order now directs the EAC to adopt, concluding that such a requirement was “not necessary or consistent with the purposes of [the] Act.” In short, the instruction in Section 2(a) “is incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”

State of Washington v Donald Trump
Separately, on April 4, Washington AG Nick Brown filed a 45 page complaint in the Ninth Circuit against the Trump Executive Order.

The Washington AG issued a Press Release that - while being a summary of their objections to the Trump Executive Order - can also provide a summary to how they will object to the Voter ID Initiative in 2026. Here are quotes from the Washington AG Press Release:

“This illegal executive order “harms States by purporting to override our sovereign laws governing the counting of votes and voter registration, imposing substantial costs on States to change state voting system and laws, and disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of State residents...The executive order also violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act by unfairly making it harder to vote.”

“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters... The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right… The order’s illegal and burdensome proof of citizenship requirements will disenfranchise voters. About 9 percent of U.S. citizens of voting age do not have such documents readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice.”

Here is a link to the Washington AG 45 page complaint:

Here are quotes from the 45 page complaint:

“Congress enacted the NVRA based on its findings that “(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right; (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(a)....allowing States to require documentary proof of citizenship was “not necessary or consistent with the purposes of this Act” and “could be interpreted by States to permit registration requirements that could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the Act’s mail registration program.”

“The Federal Form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” Id. § 20508(b)(3)… Applicants must sign the attestation under penalty of perjury and are informed that a person providing false information “may be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”

“U.S. citizens who reside in Washington, as well as eligible service and overseas voters, can complete and submit the Washington State Form online, complete and return a paper copy, or be automatically registered to vote as part of a transaction in which a state agency confirms the person’s citizenship. E.g., Wash. Rev. Code §§ 29A.08.120, .123, .315.”

“Applicants must sign an oath declaring that “I am a citizen of the United States.” Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.230. Knowingly providing false information on a voter registration form is a class C felony punishable by up five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.”

“Before a person is registered to vote, Washington election officials must confirm the person’s identity. Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.107; see also 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(5)(A). This is done by comparing the applicant’s driver’s license number, state identification card number, or the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number to information maintained by the Washington Department of Licensing. Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.107.”

“Washington law requires that state and county election officials regularly review the statewide voter registration database to identify persons who are not eligible to vote… Washington residents may obtain a standard driver’s license or identicard (a state-issued identification card) without providing proof of citizenship. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.035. This license “may not be used as evidence of or as a basis to infer an individual’s citizenship or immigration status for any purpose.” Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.1921(1).”

Problem #10 The Washington Voter ID Initiative clearly violates NVRA
The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA) can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra

The NVRA was enacted "to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office" while "ensuring that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." 52 U.S.C. § 2050l(b)(l), (4)… Section 8 of the NVRA addresses state voter list maintenance procedures for elections for federal office, prescribing specific conditions under which registrants may be removed from voter registration lists. Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(4) prohibit states from removing a properly registered individual from the voter registration rolls for elections for Federal office except:

• At the request of the registrant,
  • By reason of criminal conviction (as provided by State law),
  • By reason of mental incapacity (as provided by State law),
  • By reason of the death of the registrant, or
  • By reason of a change in the residence of the registrant.

Even without all of the federal court rulings, it is obvious that no voter in Washington can be removed from the voter rolls because they do not have an enhanced Drivers License. They can only be removed when they ask to be removed, when they commit a crime, when they have a mental problem, when they move or when they die. There are no other exceptions.

Problem #11 The Washington Voter ID Initiative also violates HAVA
The Help America Vote Act HAVA) provides federal funds in return for complying with federal election laws. Here is a link to this 65 page federal voting rights law passed in 2002.

The purpose of HAVA is to improve our country’s election system. States are obligated to maintain accurate voter lists and thereby minimize the opportunities for and the incidence of fraud. Under Section 303(a) of HAVA, a voter registration application for an election for federal office may not be accepted or processed by the State unless it includes a driver’s license number from the applicant, or if the applicant does not have a driver’s license, the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number.

If an applicant has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license or social security number, the State must assign a special identifying number for voter registration. See 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(5)(A). Section 303(a)’s requirement that States utilize a unique identifying number to voters who indicate they have neither a driver’s license nor a social security number is an integral part of the minimum Federal standard.

The problem is that Washington state law allows the Washington State Department of Licensing to violate HAVA. When a person from another country comes into the Washington State Department of Licensing, they obviously do not have a Washington Drivers License. In addition, they likely do not have a US Social Security card. Despite these facts, they are allowed to check a box to be registered to vote and they are registered to vote and given a Washington Drivers License without any special identifying number. This is a clear violation of HAVA.

Thus, the real underlying problem is with the Washington State Department of Licensing. The Washington State Department of Licensing automatically gives Voter Registrations like cotton candy to anyone who applies for a Washington state drivers license. The second problem is with the State voter list required by HAVA. A person who did not have a Washington Drivers License or Social Security number should not have been put on that list without a special identifying number. The accurate state voter list is the responsibility of the Washington Secretary of State. Thus, Steve Hobbs is also is guilty of failing to comply with federal election laws.

It is his fault and the DMV fault that an unknown number of non-citizens have been illegally registered without a special ID number and thus are illegally able to vote in Washington. The solution to this problem is not to impose additional requirements on existing Washington voters. Rather it is for the federal government aka the Department of Justice to come out to Washington State and force Washington to comply with these two federal voting laws. Other states are also violating this HAVA requirement. Pam Bondi has already sent warning letters to North Carolina, Minnesota, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, California and Arizona.

Here is a link to the Minnesota letter dated June 25, 2025: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/State-of-Minnesota.pdf

Here is a quote from the May 2025 DOJ HAVA complaint filed against North Carolina:

“Upon information and belief, a significant number of North Carolina voters who did not provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number using that voter registration form were nonetheless registered by their election officials, in violation of HAVA Section 303(a).”

“Per Federal Law: Section 401 of HAVA assigns enforcement responsibilities to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This section plays a critical role in ensuring that states adhere to federal laws and standards for election administration, including voter registration, voting systems, and provisional voting.”

NVRA requires that states maintain "clean and accurate" voter registration records. This includes the duty of each state to remove the names of voters who have died or changed their residency to another state. States are allowed to mail out Confirmation letters asking folks if they are dead or if they have moved. And all that it takes to stay on the voting rolls is to reply to the Confirmation letter that you are still alive and you have not moved. But many states, including Washington state, have failed to send out confirmation letters and failed to maintain accurate voter rolls and now the Department of Justice is going after them.

Why the Washington Voter ID Initiative violates HAVA
Regardless of whether the federal government is able to force states into cleaning up their voters rolls, as required by federal law, the Washington Voter ID Initiative also violates HAVA because HAVA does not require either finding your original birth certificate or getting a passport or getting an enhanced drivers license in order to register to vote.

Problem #12 The cost of gathering signatures for the Voter ID Initiative will likely exceed one million dollars
As this is an Initiative to the 2026 legislature, signed petitions do not need to be turned back in until December 2025. However, given that the past several Initiative drives by Let’s Go Washington have all required spending at least one million dollars each to paid signature gatherers, it can safely be assumed that this Initiative will likely require spending at least one million dollars just to get the 400,000 signatures to qualify the Initiative so it can be submitted to the 2026 legislature.

Note: While claims have been made that only 320,000 signatures need to be gathered, the truth is that 320,000 valid and unique signatures need to be gathered. With a 20% rate of duplicate or otherwise invalid signatures, it is really 400,000 signatures that need to be gathered. This million dollar cost for professional signature gatherers is over and above the countless hours of time that will be spent by volunteers gathering signatures to supplement the paid professional signature drive.

Because this is an Initiative to the legislature rather than an Initiative directly to the People, the Washington legislature will then be given the opportunity to draft their own less intrusive initiative. For example, they might draft an Initiative that grandfathers in all existing voters and only requires ID for new people.

Or they might match existing federal law and only require a special voter registration number for people who do not have a valid Drivers License or Social Security number. The voters will then be left to choose between an invasive Republican Party Voter ID Initiative that discriminates against Blacks, Poor People, Older People and Married Women versus a Democratic Party Initiative that protects all of these groups while still reducing the number of illegal aliens who can register to vote. After more millions are wasted on the 2026 election, even if the Voter ID initiative passes, there will still be a court challenge and the federal courts are almost certain to toss the Initiative out.

Problem #13 The Voter ID Initiative does not solve the Clark County Problem
A recent analysis of a close election in the 18^th LD Senate race in Clark County found that the number of people who voted illegally exceeded the vote difference between the two candidates in the election. But the illegal voters were all US citizens who did not live in Clark County but voted in Clark County anyway. Nearly all of these were voters who had moved to a different county but had failed to update their addresses. The problem is that the county auditors are failing to keep their voter rolls current and accurate as required by federal law. The other problem is that the average voter moves every 3 to 5 years. So our voter rolls all across Washington right now are extremely inaccurate. Imposing Voter ID will not stop voters from moving every 3 to 5 years and it will do almost nothing to address the real problem of lazy auditors. What is really needed is a more accurate way of keeping track of voters who have moved.

Problem #14 There are at least 10 Less Intrusive State Alternatives to a Mass Citizenship Verification Initiative
There are major problems with Election Integrity in Washington state. However, these problems can be addressed without requiring a million legal voters to track down and submit their birth certificates.

Here are 10 other options that reduce registering non-citizens in a non-invasive way.

#1: In 2023, Ohio passed HB 458 requiring IDs and licenses issued to noncitizens must have a notation designating that they are a noncitizen.

#2: North Dakota driver's licenses and state-issued ID cards with "Temporary" or "Permanent" listed on them cannot be used for voting.

#3: Tennessee requires Drivers Licenses issued to noncitizens to include a visually distinctive marker indicating the License cannot be used for voting. 

#4: Per SB 32, effective Jan. 1, 2026, Wyoming will require licenses issued to residents who are not U.S. citizens to state "Not a U.S. Citizen".

#5: In 2025, South Dakota passed SB 75 requiring an indication of citizenship status on driver licenses and ID cards.

#6: Effective Jan. 1, 2026, Montana will require licenses issued to U.S. citizens to have an eagle signifying their status as US citizens.  

#7 Ohio SB 63 (2015) requires the secretary of state to conduct an annual review of the statewide voter registration database, including a comparison of information with the bureau of motor vehicles to identify a person who submits documentation to the bureau of motor vehicles indicating the person is not a U.S. citizen.

#8 Oklahoma SB 1040 (2023) specifies that voter registration services may not be offered to a person who provides documentation when applying for a driver's license or state ID card that shows the person is not a U.S. citizen.

#9 Rhode Island RI SB 770 (2017) established automatic voter registration and specified that the DMV is to not provide a voter registration application to anyone who has not certified they are a US citizen.

#10 In Washington state, on March 4, 2025, Jim Walsh introduced House Joint Memorial 4007 calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to audit and review the accuracy of Washington’s “implementation of the ‘Motor Voter Law. The Joint Memorial asked the Department of Justice to focus on “possible violations of the United States Constitution, the United States Code, the Washington Constitution or the Revised Code of Washington… RCW 29A.08.355, hereafter referred to as the "Motor Voter Law," involves the automatic registration of people to vote in elections in Washington with no determination of whether those people are, in fact, legal voters, which risks diluting legal Washington voters' voice in state law, policy, and government actions.”

Wyoming House Bill 156 litigation
As noted above, Wyoming requires drivers licenses issued to residents who are not U.S. citizens to state "Not a U.S. Citizen". On March 21, 2025, Wyoming passed House Bill 156 which clarified voter registration requirements in Wyoming. The law clarifies that:

"Proof of residence" means the documents or other proof of residence specified by rule of the secretary of state, which rule identifies documents or other proof that establishes residency. If a person does not have the documents or other proof of residency specified by rule of the secretary of state, "proof of residence" may be established by a signed attestation of the person that the person is a bona fide resident of the state of Wyoming. The attestation shall be subject to verification by the county clerk or the secretary of state;

"Proof of United States citizenship" means, for purposes of voter registration, any of the following:

(A) A valid Wyoming driver's license as defined by W.S. 31‑7‑102(a)(xxv) or a valid Wyoming identification card issued under W.S. 31‑8‑101, provided that the license or identification card does not contain any indication that the person is not a United States citizen;”

This law appears to comply with NVRA and HAVA. However, the law was immediately challenged in federal court. On July 22, 2025, the federal court issued a decision which can be read at this link:

https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/7_22_25-case-dismissed.pdf

Proponents of the Trump Executive Order and proponents of the Washington Voter ID Initiative have claimed that this federal court ruling was a victory for Documented Proof of Citizenship (DPOC). But it was not. The judge merely ruled that the group bringing the complaint lacked standing because they did not actually represent any voters in Wyoming. Thus, the court did not make any ruling on the merits of their argument.

But even if the group did have standing and even if the court did rule in favor of the new Wyoming law, it would not apply to either the Trump Executive order or the Washington Voter ID Initiative as both go much farther than the new Wyoming law – which still accepts an Oath.

Problem #15 There is at least one Federal Alternative to a Mass Citizenship Verification Initiative

2025 Congress SAVE Act: In 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, but it did not pass Congress and was reintroduced for this legislative session. On April 10, 2025 the bill passed the House, and it now awaits further judgment in the Senate.  However, it does not appear that the bill will be even considered by the Senate as it has not even been assigned to a committee. The SAVE ACT is a Voter ID bill nearly identical to the Washington Voter ID Initiative. Therefore, if it ever did pass, the Washington Voter ID Initiative would become irrelevant. On the other hand, if the SAVE Act does not pas, then it is highly likely that federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, would rule that the Washington Voter ID Initiative violates NVRA and/or HAVA and/or the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Problem #16 A better option is to address the real problem with an Initiative to amend other Washington Drivers License laws.

Rather than placing additional burdens on millions of actual Washington citizens to prove they are citizens, the burden should be placed where it belongs - on Washington state officials to stop automatically registering non-citizens to vote when they get a Drivers License.
Here is the real problem: “Washington residents may obtain a standard driver’s license or identicard (a state-issued identification card) without providing proof of citizenship. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.035.”

This statement, taken from Nick Brown’s complaint against the Trump Executive Order, is true – but only because this law was amended in 2024 by House Bill 2099 to add two options that do not require providing proof of citizenship. See options (g) and (h) here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.035

Option (g) provides ID cards to incarcerated persons with no check for citizenship per RCW 72.09.535

Option (h) provides ID cards to hospitalized patients with no check for citizenship per RCW 72.23.175

Closing these loopholes would return to the case that a normal Washington Drivers License would provide proof of citizenship.

In his complaint against Trump, Nick Brown also stated: “This license “may not be used as evidence of or as a basis to infer an individual’s citizenship or immigration status for any purpose.” Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.1921(1).”

This RCW does not refer to a normal Washington Drivers License. Instead it refers to a REAL ID or Enhanced License! Shockingly, this statement by Nick Brown is true. This crazy law was passed in 2017 as Senate Bill 5008. It is essential to understand that under HAVA, either a normal Drivers License or Social Security card is accepted as Documented Proof of Citizenship and must be accepted as Proof of Citizenship. This badly written law (Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.1921(1) means that if and when a Washington driver converts their license to an Enhanced License, they are giving up the very document that is their documented Proof of Citizenship – the opposite of what is intended by getting an Enhanced Drivers License.

While this problem is partially addressed by RCW 46.20.156, this law only creates more confusion. There should be no distinction between a normal Washington Drivers License and an Enhanced License for voter registration or proof of citizenship. Instead, there should be a special Non-citizen license for people who are not citizens.

Which brings us to another RCW that need to be amended. RCW 46.20.021 allows New Residents to get a Washington Drivers License without proof of citizenship. This must be amended so that there are two kinds of normal licenses and that if a person does not provide proof of citizenship (for example when getting food stamps) that they be issued a license or ID card that is labeled NO PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP PROVIDED. The same is true of RCW 46.20.036

The most important law that must be amended (by way of Initiative) is RCW 46.20.155. This law (the Automatic Voter Registration Law) violates federal law because it merely asks the applicant if they are a US citizen. Federal law requires a checkbox and an OATH of Affirmation under penalty of perjury, fine and imprisonment. This RCW is also contrary to RCW 46.20.035 which does Proof of Identity – but allows minors to proof their Identity by being accompanied by their parent who proves their citizenship by providing their drivers license.

Here are the Washington laws amended by the Voters ID Initiative to require that all Washington citizens must obtain a REAL ID card (also known as an Enhanced Drivers License) :

RCW 29A.08.010, 29A.08.123, 29A.08.210, and 29A.08.350

Here are the Washington laws that would need to be amended to directly require non-citizens to obtain a special Non-citizen Washington drivers license that could not be used to register to vote:

RWC 46.20.035, 46.20.1921(1), 46.20.156, 46.20.021, 46.20.036, and 46.20.155.

While the Voter ID Initiative violates federal law and requires millions of legal Washington voters to remain on the voter rolls, an Initiative to require a special Non-citizen Drivers license for people who are not citizens would comply with federal law and would not require any additional steps of existing legal Washington voters.

Problem #17 Huge differences between Washington State Proof of Identity laws and Washington Department of Licensing practices
If an Initiative to comply with federal law is considered, or if a request is filed to have the US Department of Justice issue a warning letter to Washington state for failure to comply with federal law, it is important to also address the fact that the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) is using Proof of Identity options that are not authorized even by the currently illegal and poorly written Washington state laws.

Here is a link to the Washington DOL 2 page brochure called “Identity Requirements.” https://dol.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/ID-requirements.pdf

This brochure is passed out to the public and contains numerous ways to prove identity that are not found in Washington laws. There are Stand Alone, A List and B List options and more options not on either list. These options go far beyond the options found in RCW 46.20.035

Do an online search for “Revised Code of Washington Identity requirements.” You will see there are no A or B lists in Washington voter registration laws. Nor are these “Stand Alone, A List and B list options to be found in federal laws.

Below is an image of the current Washington Identity Requirements brochure.

Thus, merely amending Washington laws is not enough. We also need to demand that actual DOL practices comply with state and federal laws.

Problem #18 Conservative Initiative Sponsors have a poor track record in drafting legal Initiatives
Proponents of the Voter ID Initiative have also mis-stated the success rate of past Initiatives. The truth is that over the past 25 years, there have been 11 Initiatives that were passed by the voters and then challenged in court. Of these 11 Initiatives passed by the voters and then challenged in court, 10 were ruled by the court to be unconstitutional.

This fact confirms that conservative Initiative sponsors have a poor track record of drafting legal Initiatives. I review the legal problems of all 10 of these rejected Initiatives in this article: https://washingtonfamilyrightscoalition.org/lessons-from-past-failed-initiatives/2-legal-failings-of-past-initiatives

Problem #19 Initiatives to the Legislature are only half as likely to become enduring laws as Initiatives submitted directly to the People

In addition, a review of all Initiatives filed during the past 12 years found that Initiatives submitted directly to the People were twice as likely to become enduring laws as Initiatives submitted to the Legislature. There have been 13 Initiatives to the People since 2012. 11 passed - but 3 of the 11 were later declared as violating our state constitution. Only 2 of the 13 Initiatives to the People failed to get a majority of votes in the General Election. So the success rate was 11 out of 13 equals 85%.

By contrast, there have been 16 Initiatives to the Legislature since 2012. 4 were approved by the legislature. But 1 of those 4 was later rejected by the voters and another (the Parents Rights Initiative) was approved by the Legislature only to be gutted the next year by the Legislature.

The remaining 12 Initiatives to the Legislature all failed to be approved by the legislature. Of these 12, only 5 were approved by the voters in the General Election. The remaining 7 were not approved by either the Legislature or the voters. So the success rate for Initiatives submitted to the Legislature was 2 plus 5 equals 7 out of 16 equals 44%.

This fact calls into question the wisdom of submitting ANY Initiatives to the Legislature for ANY reason. Here is an article reviewing these 29 Initiatives. https://washingtonfamilyrightscoalition.org/lessons-from-past-failed-initiatives/4-why-we-should-submit-initiatives-directly-to-the-people

Problem #20 Proponents of the Voter ID Initiative has been misleading voters by making false claims about the Single Subject Rule
Proponents of the Voter ID Initiative have also repeatedly mis-stated the Washington State Constitution Single Subject Rule in order to mislead voters into thinking that their Voter ID Initiative is valid. For example, proponents of the Voter ID Initiative have incorrectly stated that “You can’t have an Initiative that changes multiple things in the law. Each Initiative must only do one thing.” See for example, this YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QKt3Sz_aZM

In fact, just because an Initiative “only does one thing” does not make it valid. Also, you can have an Initiative that “does more than one thing” and be valid, as long as the topics are related to each other.

Article 2, Section 19, of the Washington State Constitution also called the Single Subject Rule, states: “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

The confusion in understanding the meaning of the Single Subject Rule has to do with the difference between a “subject” and a “topic.” Bills or Initiatives can only include one broad Subject, such as the subject “tax reform.” But as long as the subject is broadly stated, it can include many topics -provided that the topics are all related to the subject and are all rationally related to each other.

For example, in 2019, in the case called Garfield County v State, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 976 ($30 car tabs) violated the Single Subject rule because the Initiative included two topics that were not related to each other.

Here is a link to this ruling:

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/983208.PDF

Here is a quote from this ruling: “Section 12 is a specific directive to retire, defease, or refinance existing bonds, if possible. This is a separate subject from “limiting vehicle taxes and fees.” Accordingly, I-976 violates article II, section 19’s single subject rule.”

Here is another quote from this decision with the legal citations omitted:

“Our single subject analysis is framed differently depending on whether the ballot title is general or restrictive. The parties agree that I-976 has a general title. In such cases, all that is required is “‘rational unity between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions…. “

“The existence of rational unity is determined by whether the matters within the body of the initiative are germane to the general title and whether they are germane to one another.”

The 2024 Natural Gas Initiative also violated the Single Subject Rule
This distinction between subjects and topics is important because the 2024 Natural Gas Initiative was found to be unconstitutional because it contained subjects that were not related to each other. Here is a quote from the King County May 9 decision:

“The following subjects are among the many contained in the 20-plus pages of Initiative 2066: (1) providing natural gas to homes and businesses, (2) limiting the authority of agencies to control air pollution, and (3) changing building energy efficiency standards. Because these different subjects are not related to each other, I-2066 is unconstitutional under Section 19.”`

Proposal for a Better Process for Drafting & Reviewing Initiatives
Given that the Washington State Initiative submission process lacks the Public Hearing, Public Comment and Amendment processes – all required by bills submitted to the legislature, and given that Initiatives are submitted by a single person, and given the past track record of having over 90% of Initiatives approved by the voters - but then challenged in court - rejected by the court, resulting in the waste of millions of dollars and countless volunteer hours gathering signatures, we need a better process for drafting Initiatives before submitting them to the Secretary of State.

Just as the Republican Party “vets” candidates before endorsing them, the Republican Party should have a formal system for “vetting” initiatives before endorsing them. While any citizen retains the right to submit and promote any Initiative, if an Initiative is to have the support of the Washington State Republican Party, there needs to be an Initiative Review Committee which holds public hearings and accepts public comments and addresses several questions about the proposed Initiative including but not limited to:

#1: Does the proposed Initiative comply with the Single Subject Rule, the Full Text Rule and all other sections of the Washington State Constitution?

#2 Does the proposed Initiative comply with the US Constitution and current federal laws?

#3 Are there laws proposed or passed in other states to address similar problems?

#4 Are there other options that are less invasive and would be more likely to be approved by the voters?

#5 What have State or Federal courts ruled on similar laws?

How we can encourage the Washington State Republican Party to form an Initiative Review Committee
One option to encourage the Washington State Republican Party to form an Initiative Review Committee is to pass a resolution in favor of forming such a committee at a local LD or County Party meeting. Here is an example of such a Resolution in favor of an Initiative Review Committee:

Whereas the Republican Party routinely vets candidates before endorsing them; and

Whereas 10 out of the last 11 conservative Initiatives passed by the voters and later challenged in court were found to be invalid by the court due to Constitutional issues such as the Single Subject Rule; and

Whereas these legally invalid Initiatives included the 2018 $30 Car Tabs Initiative and the 2024 Natural Gas Initiative; and

Whereas the Washington Republican Party has invested countless volunteer hours gathering signatures for Initiatives that were later ruled to be unconstitutional; and

Whereas Republicans have invested millions of dollars passing Initiatives that were later found to be unconstitutional;

Therefore, we encourage the Washington State Republican Party to form an Initiative Review Committee to vet Initiatives for compliance with the Washington State Constitution, US Constitution and US federal laws before asking local LD and County Republican Party organizations to gather signatures and/or provide financial support for such Initiatives.

Name of Organization: __________________________

Date Resolution approved: _______________________

We will offer a free course on How to Write an Effective Initiative
The Voter ID Initiative is not alone in suffering from constitutional problems. Many of the Initiatives currently being contemplated in 2025 suffer from serious constitutional problems. We have therefore decided to offer a free four session course in How to Write an Effective Initiative.

Initiative Writing Course Topics include:
* Complying with Article 2, Section 19 The Single Subject Rule
* Complying with Article 2, Section 37 The Full Text Rule
* How to search state & federal court rulings
* Drawbacks of writing Initiatives to the Legislature
* Why amending existing comprehensive state laws rather than drafting new comprehensive laws is more likely to comply with the Single Subject Rule.

This free online course will be offered on Tuesday evenings from 6 to 8 pm.
To sign up for this free course on writing effective initiatives, visit this link:
https://washingtonfamilyrightscoalition.org/family-rights-courses/sign-up-for-our-effective-initiative-writing-course

Conclusion
It will take a million dollars or more just to place the Voter ID Initiative before the 2026 legislature. It is certain that the legislature will not pass this Initiative. Thus, it will go to the 2026 General Election. It is likely that the Legislature will draft their own Initiative “claiming” to offer the voters a less intrusive solution. Additional millions of dollars will then need to be spent by both sides. It is highly likely that the Democrats Alternative Initiative will win as they will likely outspend the Conservative option by at least five to one.

But even if the Conservative Voter ID option wins in the 2026 Election, it is certain to be challenged in federal court and it is nearly certain that the federal court will rule that it violates NVRA and/or HAVA and is therefore Null and Void.

Imagine if instead of spending millions on an Initiative doomed to failure, we invested a few thousand dollars training concerned citizens how to start their own Common Sense Community News websites and created a statewide network of these news websites to better inform Independent voters of how the Crazy Cult in Olympia is violating both federal laws and Common Sense on every issue that matters.

Imagine if we expanded the Parents Rights Initiative to be a comprehensive Family Rights Initiative that went beyond merely Parental Notice after our kids have been harmed - to actually protecting all of our children from harmful WOKE propaganda in the first place. We could convince hundreds of thousands of Independent voters - nearly all of whom are parents – to switch sides – and win the State House, Senate and Governors Races in 2028. That would be a wiser choice than trying to pass a Voter ID Initiative that is doomed to failure.

As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Family Rights Coalition

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The first lesson we should learn from past failed Initiatives is the need to build a much larger Family Rights Coalition BEFORE gathering signatures to place our Family Rights Initiatives on the ballot. In this article, we will first review some of the past problems of failing to build a large coalition before submitting Initiatives. We will then outline the process for building our Family Rights coalition and the tasks that must be accomplished.

Problem 1: Failing to gather enough signatures
Even a brief review of past Initiatives confirms that many important Initiatives failed to gather the needed signatures to even be put on the ballot. Here we will use the recent example of Referendum 101. Referendums should be easier to put on the ballot than an Initiative because they only require half the number of signatures. Referendum 101 was intended to repeal one of the worst bills ever written, namely 2023 Senate Bill 5599 – which I call the Child Kidnapping Bill.

Jennifer Heine-Withee of the Family Policy Institute of Washington stated: “This bill allows the state to hide children from their parents at a time when the child is in crisis and needs the parent more than ever. Then, the state can consent to allow the child to get whatever gender transition service they want. There isn’t even room for due process – if a child says their parent won’t be supportive of the change, that’s all it takes, and that child can be put in a ‘host home’ without disclosing their location to the parents.”

Senate Bill 5599 gives explicit rights to the state to allow kids – who are likely going through mental health problems - to undergo major medical procedures, including taking toxic Trans drugs, without the consent of the parents or even contacting the parents – regardless of the age of the child.

Senate Bill 5599 was approved on April 23, 2023. Dawn Land filed Referendum 101 on April 24, 2023 and the ballot title was issued on May 2, 2023. Jay Inslee signed Senate Bill 5599 on May 9, 2023. The bill was scheduled to take effect on July 23, 2023 which meant that opponents of this bill only had until Saturday July 22, 2023 to collect valid signatures of at least 162,258 registered voters. To get this many valid signatures, they really needed to gather about 200,000 signatures in two and a half months.

“We’re hoping everybody can understand it really is a bad law,” said organizer Dawn Land of Puyallup. “We are putting it on the ballot so we the people can veto it.” Dawn set up a website at this link: https://www.reject5599.com/

Dawn also filed a committee with the PDC called Reject 5599 which you can see at this link: https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/committees/co-2023-32444

Concerned citizens donated a total of $30,000, half of which was spent on printing 60,000 petitions with the rest spent on advertising. In the end, they failed to gather enough signatures.

The horrible law went into effect on July 23, 2023 and is still in effect today. One of our goals in drafting our Family Rights Initiative is to repeal this horrible law. But the lesson we should learn from this disaster is that we need to first build a very large coalition and only after it is built should we start gathering signatures.

Problem #2: Gathering enough signatures only to see our efforts defeated in the General Election
A sad example of this problem was Referendum 90 which gathered over 260,000 signatures to be put on the 2020 General Election ballot only to lose by a margin of 58% to 42%. Referendum 90 sought to repeal Senate Bill 5395 – which I call the Sex Ed for Kinders bill. This is the law currently being used to brainwash 6 year olds into changing their names and joining the Trans Drug Cult without their parents knowledge or consent.

Those favoring repealing Sex Ed for Kinders set up a Facebook page which still exists at this link:
https://www.facebook.com/ParentsforSafeSchools/

Their leader and referendum sponsor, Mindie Wirth, also set up a simple website called Parentsforsafeschools.com. This website no longer exists. But you can see it by going to archive.org.

They also set up a committee with the PDC showing that they raised $462,000. Unfortunately, another group called Safe and Healthy Youth Washington raised $1.7 million – outspending them more than three to one. The groups who outspent them included Planned Parenthood ($500,000), ACLU ($220,000) and the WEA – teachers union ($150,000).

The lying legacy media also spent millions of dollars in misleading articles that fooled the voters. For example, on October 20, 2020, KUOW published an article which falsely claimed that: “In kindergarten through third grade, that’s social emotional learning, which is managing your feelings, how to make friends. There's no sexuality taught in those younger grades.”

In fact, it left it up to Reykdal to determine what was age appropriate. Reykdal turned the curriculum into a Trans Drug Cult Propaganda Fest.

One of our goals in drafting our Family Rights Initiatives is to amend the Sex Ed for Kinders law to at least protect children in Elementary schools from being subjected to Trans Drug Cult Propaganda.

The important lessons we should learn from this disaster is not only do we need to have a large enough coalition to gather the signatures, we also need to set up our own Pro-family Community News websites to get the truth out to voters. We also need to anticipate that we will be outspent by at least three to one – another reason to build our own statewide network of community news websites before placing our Family Rights Initiatives on the ballot.

How to build a large enough group to pass our Family Rights Initiatives
Our plan not only includes building a statewide network of Pro-family community news websites to better inform Independent voters, but also to hold Family Rights educational events with churches and community groups throughout Washington state during the next three years in order to build a large enough coalition of parents and grandparents in each county to gather the needed 400,000 signatures without needing any paid signature gatherers. We believe that protecting our families and protecting our kids from the Trans Drug Cult is the issue of our time. We will not stop organizing until we have achieved this goal.

While it is clear that the vast majority of the members and leaders of the Washington State Republican Party support Family Rights, it is also clear that the current Washington State Republican Party is not large enough to defeat the Crazy Cult in Olympia at the moment. Hopefully, we will be able to greatly expand the Republican Party in our state.

Changing the Focus from Identity Politics to Issue Based Advocacy

We also need to recognize that many parents and grandparents who might be willing to join and support our cause do not like or trust either political party. Their motivation in working with us is protecting and providing a better future for their kids. This point is crucial because while there are one million Democrats and 800,000 Republicans in our state, there are at least 2 million Independent voters who do not and likely will never identify with either major political party.

Ideally, a few hundred thousand Pro-Family Rights supporters will join the Republican Party – allowing us to grow the Republican Party by perhaps 50%. But the key to winning elections is attracting the votes of parents and grandparents who are unwilling to join any political party. Working independent from and parallel to the Republican Party and focused entirely on the issue of Family Rights will allow these parents and grandparents to become involved while at the same time retaining their political independence.

In addition, there are at least 800,000 Republican Party supporters in Washington state. All we need is half of them to support our cause and sign petitions in order to put it on the ballot.

There are at least one million voters who attend church here in Washington state. While there is a strong overlap between attending church and supporting the Republican Party, all we need is half of the voters who attend church to sign petitions in order to get the 400,000 signatures needed to put the Family Rights Initiative on the ballot.

Finally, there are many people who attend church but who never vote. Rather than complaining about this, we need to give these people a reason to vote. Putting Family Rights on the ballot is going to give them a better reason to vote.

Polls already show that the vast majority of voters support Parents Rights.

The voters also support Girls Rights to fair sports and private spaces:

We will also have the help of at least 6 important Pro-family Supreme Court rulings in 2025
We have already had four pro-family US Supreme Court rulings:

In 2023, in Students v Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled against DEI efforts as being against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In August 2024, in Tennessee v Cardona, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing boys in girls bathrooms, locker rooms and sports leagues.

On June 5, 2025, in Catholic Charities v Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court voted 9 to zero that all religious activity is protected by First Amendment. This means that the state cannot regulate which causes churches choose to support. This ruling will help give pastors more courage to publicly oppose the Trans Drug Cult and publicly support protecting Family Rights.

On June 18, 2025, in US v Skrmetti ,the Supreme Court, in the case of. hammered another nail in the coffin of Chris Reykdal, Bob Ferguson, and their Trans Drug Cult, by agreeing with the state of Tennessee that there are good reasons for prohibiting minors from being given toxic Trans drugs.

It is likely that in the next few weeks, in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor (protecting the right of parents to opt their kids out of Trans school curriculum), the Supreme Court will rule in favor of protecting Parents Rights.

This Fall, in in the case of Chiles v Salazar, it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn a Trans Cult case called Tingley versus Ferguson – a case that forces gender confused kids in our state to take toxic Trans drugs instead of getting the counseling they need.

We will have the help of the US Department of Justice investigation of Chris Reykdal in 2026
We have filed three complaints against Reykdal – all of which will be investigated by the US Department of Justice in the next year. On February 28, 2025, we filed a 99 page Title IX complaint against Reykdal for allowing boys to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms and take over girls sports.

In March, we filed a 60 page complaint against Reykdal for violating the Title VI rights of students by subjecting them to discrimination based on their skin color.

In April, we filed a 60 page complaint against Reykdal for violating the FERPA rights of parents to be told the honest and complete facts about what is happening to their children while they are in school.

All of these complaints against Reykdal will be investigated in the coming year. It is certain Reykdal will be found guilty not only of violating several federal laws – but also lying to the voters here in Washington state for the past 5 years. Reykdal will also have to answer for violating the federal civil rights of his own employees. On June 3, 2025, Darby Kaikkonen, a former high ranking OSPI Director and the current Tumwater School Board President, filed a complaint against King Reykdal in federal court to “redress violations of (her) constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as state law claims arising under Washington law.”

Our goal is to combine all of these factors to help us win the war being waged against our families by the Trans Drug Cult. As long as we have Patience, Persistence and a Positive Attitude, we will eventually restore Family Rights here in Washington state. Thanks for reading this article and for supporting Family Rights. We look forward to your questions and comments.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Washington Family Rights Coalition

On May 20, 2025, Bob Ferguson signed House Bill 1296, effectively gutting the Parents Rights Initiative. That same day, the sponsors of the original Parents Rights Initiative discussed a plan they were considering to repeal House Bill 1296 and restore parents rights by submitting another Parents Rights Initiative to the legislature. In a previous article, we explained why submitting any more initiatives to the legislature is a bad idea. We should be guided by the rule that “Insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result.” In this article, we will explain why merely repealing House Bill 1296 and restoring the original Parents Rights bill (which is more accurately called a Parental Notice bill) will not address the major problems currently being faced by families here in Washington state – problems which can only be solved by drafting and passing a series of comprehensive Family Rights Initiatives.

 

Why it would wise to file a comprehensive “Family Rights Initiative to the People” in 2028 instead of a “Parents Rights Initiative to the Legislature” in 2026
The advantage of filing an Initiative to the People in 2028 is that we would give us nearly 3 years to build a large enough volunteer organization and to build enough community news websites so that we can not only gather 400,000 signatures but also so that we can actually pass the Family Rights Initiatives in the General Election.

Problems not addressed by the original Parents Rights Initiative
The main provision of our original Parents Rights Initiative was to insure that parents would be given a complete and accurate record of what is happening to their child while their child was at school. The original Initiative did not cover other important family related issues like protecting their kids from brainwashing and indoctrination.

Nor did it protect the right of girls to their own bathrooms, locker rooms and sports leagues.

Nor did it restore the right of children and parents to be told the scientific truth about the toxicity of Trans Drugs.

Or the scientific truth that it is not possible for boys to be turned into girls or girls to be turned into boys no matter how many drugs are given to the child.

It also did not restore the right of kids with mental health problems to see a child counselor instead of being forced to take Toxic Trans Drugs.

In short, the original Parents Rights Initiative did not fully protect the parent child relationship. A more comprehensive series of Family Rights Initiatives could and should address all of the above issues. As long as we are going to the effort of gathering 400,000 signatures, let’s pass Initiatives that actually fully restore and fully protect the parent-child relationship.

Clarifying the Washington State Single Subject Rule
Some who have read rough drafts of our Family Rights Initiative have expressed concerns that the Family Rights Initiative might not comply with the “Single Subject Rule” in the Washington State Constitution which has been used nullify some recent Initiatives. It is therefore important to better understand what the single subject rule is and what our Washington Supreme Court has said it means.

Article II, Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits bills from embracing more than one subject, and that subject must be expressed in the bill's title. This rule is known as the "single-subject" and "subject-in-title" rule: “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." Therefore an Initiative that:
#1 has a broad title
#2 includes subjects related to that title
#3 includes a notice that it broadens and clarifies terms will comply with the single subject rule and
#4 has a title that is not deceptive or misleading

– will be upheld as complying with the single subject rule .

This is especially true if we amend an existing law rather than creating a new law. So rather than repealing House Bill 1296 we will amend it using its framework to create a more Pro-family set of laws. House Bill 1296 is 28 pages long and includes more than 25 sections:

The first sentence of the bill explains that it is about protecting the safety of students. Even though HB 1296 actually harms students instead of protecting them, anything even remotely related to the safety of students can be put in the bill. This includes the legislature’s new School Board Gestapo Scheme intended to punish school board members – because the legislature thinks school board members can be a threat to student safety. HB 1296 also includes a section on protecting teachers from retaliation. This may seem to be unrelated to student safety. But the legislature clearly thinks that to protect student safety, they have to protect teachers. In short, nearly anything that happens at school can be related to student safety and therefore HB 1296 complies with the single subject rule.

The Family Rights Initiative uses a similarly broad title. In fact, it uses the same framework and addresses the same topics as House Bill 1296 – but in a way that actually protects the rights of students and parents. The Family Rights Initiative clarifies the rights of all family members including the rights of students and parents. Like House Bill 1296, the Family Rights Initiative also clarifies the rights and responsibilities of teachers and school board members – because the actions of both teachers and school board members can infringe on the rights of students and parents.

In short, nearly anything that happens at school can be related to student and parent rights and therefore the Family Rights Initiative complies with the single subject rule – as long as the full title specifies that the Initiative broadens and clarifies the rights of students, parents, teachers and school board members. Folks are then alerted that if they want to know how these rights are clarified, they should read the actual text of the Initiative.

Here are some of the bills harming the rights of parents and children that our Initiative will repeal:

#1 Repealing SB 5722 (2018) which prohibits child counseling and requires gender confused kids to be given toxic Trans Drugs instead of counseling.

#2 Repealing RCW 28A.600.477, RCW 28A.300.286, RCW 28A.345.130 & RCW 28A.642.080 (Policy 3211 - 2019) which requires teachers to lie to students about being able to change from a boy to a girl, lie to parents about their children & allows Boys in Girls Sports & Privates Spaces.

#3 Repealing RCW 28A.150.250 which violated Article IX, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution by allowing OSPI to not fully fund any public schools if their school board fails to comply with anti-parent state policies.

#4 Amending the Mature Minor Doctrine age from 13 to 17 to bring it more closely in line with the latest research on brain development.

#5 Repealing SB 5395 (2020) which requires Sex Ed for Kinders.

#6 Repealing HB 2331 (2024) which requires schools to buy & display age- inappropriate sex books.

#7 Restoring local control of public schools by repealing laws which are detrimental to the local school control rights of parents and children including 2025 House Bill 1296, 2024 House Bill 2331, 2023 Senate Bill 5599, 2018 Senate Bill 5722, 2020 Senate Bill 5395 and 2019 Policy 3211 (including RCW 28A.600.477, RCW 28A.642.080, RCW 28A.300.286, RCW 28A.345.130, RCW 71.34.530 and RCW 28A.150.250.

Here are some of the rights our Initiative will restore:

#1 Restoring essential parents rights including not only that parents have the right to be told the truth about what is happening to their child when their child is at school but also that parents have the right to be involved in any educational or medical decisions affecting their child and parents have the right to opt their child out of any program the parent finds offensive or harmful to their child and parents have the right to the assumption of being a fit and caring parent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

#2 Adding essential student rights including the right to be told the truth, the right to privacy, the right to counseling, the right to fair sports, the right to a good education and most important the right to parental guidance.

#3 Clarifying the Title IX right of girls not just to their own sports leagues but also to their own bathrooms and locker rooms as ordered by the Federal Court in Tennessee v Cardona on January 9, 2025.

#4 Amending the Mature Minor Doctrine to raise the age from 13 to 17.

#5 Clarifying the right of ALL STUDENTS to be free from racial discrimination & requiring compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as ordered by US Supreme Court in Students v Harvard in June 2023

#6 Requiring compliance with FERPA Parent Notice.

#7 Requiring compliance with Art. VI Sec. 2 of US Constitution which requires that federal laws have priority over Washington state laws when Washington state laws conflict with federal laws.

#8 Requiring compliance with Article 9 Section 1 of our State Constitution and gives students the right to have a fair chance of success at school by clarifying the words “ample funding” to mean at least national average class sizes – which would require hiring at least 7,000 addictional teachers so that struggling students could finally get the help they need.

#9 Requires compliance with Article 2 Section 28 of the Washington State Constitution to prohibits withholding any portion of the apportionment from any school for any reason.

#10 Clarifying the meaning of education related sections of the Washington State Constitution including clarifying that “ample” funding includes the right of all students to at least national average class sizes (which would require hiring at least 7000 additional classroom teachers and building 7000 additional classrooms for these teachers), limiting the duty of local parents to provide no more than 10% of school operating costs and school construction costs and the right of students to attend schools that meet Safe Drinking Water requirements and all Building Code requirements.

#11 Giving the legislature 10 years to clear the school construction backlog estimated to be over $40 billion by spending at least $4 billion per year on school construction until the backlog has been cleared.

#12 Adding the right of retired persons over age 62 the right to be exempt from state and local property taxes for the first $400,000 of their primary residence in order to protect them and their family from being driven out of their family homes by being unable to pay rising property taxes while living on a fixed income.

#13 Funding the above rights by repealing all tax preferences except those approved by the voters through Initiatives (these tax breaks violate numerous sections of the Washington State Constitution including Article 2, Section 28 and Article 7, Section 1) thereby generating at least $30 billion per year in recovered state revenue.

#14 Amending the “protected classes” provisions of Washington state laws to clarify that “protected classes” that go beyond the protected classes recognized by federal laws, shall only be protected to the degree that it does not violate federal laws such as Title IX, Title VI and FERPA.

If you would like to learn more about our plan to pass the Washington Family Rights Initiative, please go to YouTube.com and type Washington Parents Network into the search box to reach our YouTube channel. There you will find a 30 minute video called “How to Win the War against our Families”. Here is a direct link to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIEQrGCrskc

Please like and share this video and subscribe to our channel to be notified about additional videos as we post them in the coming weeks.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Washington Parents Network