Washington Advisory Question about the Rights of Corporations and Money as Free Speech, Initiative 735 (2016)
| Washington Initiative 735 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Definition of a corporation | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The Washington Advisory Question about the Rights of Corporations and Money as Free Speech, also known as Initiative 735, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the Legislature, a kind of indirect initiated state statute in Washington. It was approved.
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of urging the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment that reserves constitutional rights for people and not corporations. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against urging the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment that reserves constitutional rights for people and not corporations. |
The measure was, in part, a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Election results
| Initiative 735 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,923,489 | 62.82% | ||
| No | 1,138,453 | 37.18% | ||
- Election results from Washington Secretary of State
Overview
Background of Initiative 735
The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment.[1]
Initiative design
The measure was designed to urge Washington’s U.S. congressional delegation to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution. The initiative stated that rights listed in the constitution are reserved for human beings, spending money is not free speech, governments are empowered to regulate political contributions and expenditures to prevent undue influence on government, and contributions and expenditures must be disclosed to the public.
Initiative 735 required the Washington Secretary of State to deliver copies of the measure to the Washington Governor, members of the Washington Legislature, all members of the U.S. Congress, and the President.
State of the ballot measure campaigns
Supporters of Initiative 732 raised $612,087.09. The top donor to the “Yes” campaign was William H. Clapp, who contributed $50,000. Opponents did not organize a political committee to receive contributions. An Elway Poll from October 2016 indicated that 34 percent of voters were undecided on Initiative 735. About 48 percent supported the measure. Gov. Jay Inslee (D) supported the initiative.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 735 concerns a proposed amendment to the federal constitution.
This measure would urge the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment that constitutional rights belong only to individuals, not corporations, and constitutionally-protected free speech excludes the spending of money. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][3] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[4]
| “ | The measure would urge the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment clarifying that constitutional rights belong only to individuals, not corporations; that spending money is not free speech under the First Amendment; that governments are fully empowered to regulate political contributions and expenditures to prevent undue influence; and that political contributions and expenditures must be promptly disclosed to the public. The measure would urge the legislature to ratify such an amendment.[3] | ” |
Explanatory statement
The explanatory statement was as follows:[2]
The United States Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to contribute money to candidates running for office and to spend money independently to support or oppose candidates. In 2010, the Court held in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), that the First Amendment also gives corporations a right to independently spend money to support or oppose candidates. An amendment changing the United States Constitution may be proposed either by the United States Congress or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the States' legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes a part of the Constitution if it is ratified by three-fourths of the States. The amendment process is described in Article V of the United States Constitution. The measure would urge Washington's current and future members of Congress to propose a joint resolution to amend the United States Constitution. The proposed amendment would state that constitutional rights belong only to individual human beings; that spending money is not free speech under the First Amendment; that governments are fully empowered to regulate political contributions and expenditures to prevent undue influence on government; and that political contributions and expenditures must be promptly disclosed to the public. The measure would urge Washington's members of Congress to choose an amendment ratification method that will best ensure that the people are heard and represented during the ratification process. It would also urge current and future Washington legislatures to ratify such an amendment when passed by the United States Congress and delivered to the States for ratification. Finally, the measure would provide that immediately after the measure is enacted, the Washington Secretary of State is directed to deliver copies of the measure to the Washington State Governor, all current members of the Washington State Legislature, all current members of the United States Congress, and the President of the United States. |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[5]
Sec. 1. INTENT This act declares that the people of Washington State support amending The Constitution of the United States to eliminate the undue influence of concentrated money and political power on elections and governmental policy. The amendment would overturn decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States extending constitutional rights to corporations and other artificial legal entities as well as those decisions equating the spending of money with free speech. It also provides for the regulation and disclosure of political contributions and spending. Sec. 2. FINDINGS 1. Free and fair elections, as well as honest representation, are essential to self-determination and self-governance as described in The Declaration of Independence and established in The Constitution of the United States. 2. The American people have lost faith in the political process because their voices are not heard and their interests are not represented. Thus, an ever smaller percentage of Americans is motivated to vote. 3. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of corporations or other artificial entities; there are no provisions extending rights to such entities. However, through a series of decisions equating a “corporation” with a “person,” the U.S. Supreme Court extended to corporations the constitutional rights and protections intended for people only. 4. Unlike human beings, corporations can exist in perpetuity and in many countries at the same time. As a result many large corporations, both foreign and domestic, invest in campaigns to invalidate or bypass regulatory law intended to protect the public. Thus, corporate participation in the political process often conflicts with the public interest. 5. Money is property; it is not speech. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is money equated with speech. Because advertising is limited and costly, equating the spending of money with free speech gives those with the most money the most speech. 6. Whenever special interests, including very wealthy individuals, are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech, candidates and officeholders can be corrupted and intimidated, and the free speech of most citizens is drowned out and denied. Monopolizing public speech neither promotes nor protects free speech. 7. Anonymous contributions and spending for political gain promote dishonesty and corruption, preventing voters from assessing the motives of the speaker. The public must be able to hold funders of political speech accountable when their messages prove false or misleading. Full and prompt disclosure of funding sources is essential to an informed electorate, fair elections, and effective governance. 8. Article V of the U.S. Constitution empowers the people and the states to use the amendment process to correct egregious decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that subvert our representative government. Sec. 3. POLICY & PROMOTION The voters of the State of Washington urge immediate action by the current and future Washington State congressional delegations to propose a joint resolution for an amendment to The Constitution of the United States clarifying that: 1. The rights listed and acknowledged in The Constitution of the United States are the rights of individual human beings only. 2. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to be free speech under the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States. Federal, state, and local governments shall be fully empowered to regulate political contributions and expenditures to ensure that no person or artificial legal entity gains undue influence over government and the political process. 3. All political contributions and expenditures shall be disclosed promptly and in a manner accessible to voters prior to elections. 4. This act does not limit the people’s rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, or freedom of association. Sec. 4. RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the voters of the State of Washington urge the Washington state congressional delegation, and the U.S. Congress generally, to include an amendment ratification method which will best ensure that the people are heard and represented during the ratification process. Sec. 5. RECOMMENDATION TO STATE LEGISLATURE The voters of the State of Washington urge our current and future Washington state legislatures to ratify such an amendment when passed by Congress and delivered to the states for ratification. Sec. 6. DIRECTION TO SECRETARY OF STATE The Washington Secretary of State is authorized and directed to immediately deliver copies of this initiative, when enacted, to the following persons: the governor of the State of Washington, all current members of the Washington State legislature, all current members of the United States Congress, and the president of the United States. Sec. 7. CONSTRUCTION The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act. Sec. 8. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this act or its application to any person, entity, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons, artificial legal entities, or circumstances is not affected. Sec. 9. MISCELLANEOUS This act is known and may be cited as the “Government of, by, and for the People Act.” |
Fiscal impact statement
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ | Initiative 735 would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. The initiative requires the Secretary of State to immediately deliver copies of the initiative when enacted to listed elected officials, which would cost approximately $325.
Assumptions for Analysis of Initiative 735 The initiative is a request to Washington’s current and future congressional delegation to propose a joint resolution for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution clarifying five items:
When enacted, the Secretary of State is directed to immediately deliver copies of the initiative to the governor, all current member of the state Legislature, all current members of the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States, which totals approximately 684 people. Assuming the initiative is delivered by first class postage at $.47 per piece of mail, the cost to fulfill this provision is estimated at $325.[3] |
” |
Background
Initiative 735 was designed to encourage the state's congressional delegation to introduce and support a federal constitutional amendment reserving constitutional rights for people and not corporations. The measure was, in part, a response to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which held that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment.[6]
Just three months after Citizens United v. FEC was decided, Hawaii became the first state to pass a resolution condemning the ruling and calling for a new federal amendment excluding corporations from the definition of "person."[7] Other states have since passed similar resolutions.
In 2012, Colorado Amendment 65 and Montana Initiative 166 went before voters. Both were approved, with almost three-quarters of voters supporting the measures.[8] Along with Washington, California will be voting on a measure in 2016 calling on officials to support amending the U.S. Constitution in an effort to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. The California measure was called Proposition 59.
Support
Yes on 735, also known as the Washington Coalition to Amend the Constitution, led the campaign in support of Initiative 735.[9]
Supporters
Officials
- Gov. Jay Inslee (D)[10]
- Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler (D)
- U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D)
- U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-1)
- U.S. Rep. Denny Heck (D-10)
- U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-2)
- U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-6)
- U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7)
- U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-9)
- Sen. Andy Billig (D-3)
- Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-36)
- Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-32)
- Sen. Steve Conway (D-29)
- Sen. Karen Fraser (D-22)
- Sen. David Frockt (D-46)
- Sen. Cyrus Habib (D-48)
- Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-11)
- Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-44)
- Sen. Pramila Jayapal (D-37)
- Sen. Marko Liias (D-23)
- Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D-1)
- Sen. John McCoy (D-38)
- Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-30)
- Sen. Mark Mullet (D-5)
- Sen. Sharon Nelson (D-34)
- Sen. Christine Rolfes (D-23)
- Sen. Dean Takko (D-19)
- Rep. Steve Bergquist (D-11)
- Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41)
- Rep. Eileen Cody (D-34)
- Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D-46)
- Rep. Noel Frame (D-36)
- Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34)
- Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45)
- Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-33)
- Rep. Carol Gregory (D-30)
- Rep. Drew Hansen (D-23)
- Rep. Zack Hudgins (D-11)
- Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22)
- Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27)
- Rep. Ruth Kagi (D-32)
- Rep. Christine Kilduff (D-28)
- Rep. Patty Kuderer (D-48)
- Rep. Joan McBride (D-48)
- Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49)
- Rep. Luis Moscoso (D-1)
- Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3)
- Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self (D-21)
- Rep. Tina Orwall (D-33)
- Rep. Strom Peterson (D-21)
- Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46)
- Rep. Chris Reykdal (D-22)
- Rep. Marcus Riccelli (D-3)
- Rep. June Robinson (D-38)
- Rep. J.D. Rossetti (D-19)
- Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-32)
- Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37)
- Rep. Mike Sells (D-38)
- Rep. Tana Senn (D-41)
- Rep. Larry Springer (D-45)
- Rep. Derek Stanford (D-1)
- Rep. Gael Tarleton (D-36)
- Rep. Steve Tharinger (D-24)
- Rep. Brady Walkinshaw (D-43)
- Rep. Kevin Van De Wege (D-24)
- Rep. Sharon Wylie (D-49)
Former officials
- Sen. Adam Kline (D-37)[10]
- Rep. Seth Armstrong (D-36)
- Rep. Gene Lux (D-37)
- Rep. Dick Nelson (D-32)
Organizations
Parties
Civic organizations
Religious organizations
Unions
|
Arguments
Jim Street, a member of the Seattle City Council from 1983 to 1995 and a former Superior Court judge, noted:[14]
| “ | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the 2010 Supreme Court Decision that held that contributions to—and expenditures by—independent political action committees (PACs), corporations, and other special interests cannot be limited. Since 2010, expenditures by “Super PACs” and other independent committees have exploded at every level of American 'democracy.'
In the 2016 presidential campaign so far, 158 families have contributed $186 million—almost half of all the money contributed. In the special state legislative election contest this year in south King County, independent political action committees spent $1,230,000. Total spending in the campaign was $90 per voter. At stake in such “swing” districts is control of the closely divided state house and senate. And in the 2015 Seattle City Council elections, $790,210 was spent by independent PACs. This compares to $0 four years ago.[3] |
” |
Matthew Streib, Communications Director for the Yes on 735 campaign, argued:[15]
| “ | There is the argument that [unlimited campaign spending] is free speech, but I don’t think that’s a fair argument. ... When you’re in kindergarten, you’re told you can’t just speak out whenever you want. You have to raise your hand and be called on. That’s fair because it allows everyone in kindergarten to talk. People who can’t afford to have that level of payment have been drowned out.[3] | ” |
Official arguments
Cindy Black, Coordinator of the Washington Coalition to Amend the Constitution, Alice Woldt, Executive Director of Fix Democracy First, Ben Stuckart, President of the Spokane City Council, Jim Street, former Superior Court judge, Lyda Pierce, Reverend at Latino/Hispanic Ministries United Methodist Church, and Sen. Pramila Jayapal (D-37) wrote the argument in support of Initiative 735 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:[2]
Big Money is Corrupting Our Political System The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC and other cases have unleashed unlimited, anonymous campaign dollars from mega-wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, and other special interests. SuperPACs and interest groups spent more than $1 billion on campaigns in 2012 – almost 3 times more than 2008! This year will be even worse. Instead of representing the people who elected them, many politicians spend their time courting big donors who expect favors in return. Where does that leave the voice and concerns of the average citizen? Congress Will Only Act If We Demand It Although 80% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats support overturning Citizens United, Congress will not act on its own -- politicians profit from business as usual. But when we voters put our voices on record, we hold Congress accountable for inaction. Sixteen states and over 650 municipalities have already passed measures like ours. By adding Washington to the list, we will tell our elected representatives that we want change now. A New Constitutional Amendment Initiative 735 calls on Congress to initiate a Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United and stipulating that spending money is not protected political speech. The amendment would ensure that contributions are regulated and publicly disclosed. It would also clarify that only people have Constitutional rights -- not corporations or special interest groups. This is about restoring the power of “We the People.” Let's send a clear message to the other Washington. Vote “yes” on Initiative 735! |
Opposition
First Amendment Defenders is leading the campaign in opposition to Initiative 735.[16]
Arguments against
Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research at the free-market think tank Washington Policy Center, stated:[15]
| “ | Money isn’t everything in politics. Well-funded politicians lose all the time (Jeb Bush?) and popular small-donation efforts can have a huge impact. ... There is no guarantee that everyone will have equal dollars or equal media minutes to promote their particular message. And even if that were possible (it’s not), should we trust people in government to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t? Or whether some person or group has been speaking too much and should now be silenced?[3] | ” |
Official arguments
Rebecca Faust and Kelly Houghton wrote the argument against Initiative 735 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:
Initiative 735 is a dangerous proposal to allow government censorship. This would be the first Constitutional amendment since prohibition to take rights away. Silencing speech is undemocratic Citizens should have as much opportunity to share and receive information as possible. Silencing certain speakers is counterproductive. Forbidding citizens from spending their money spreading their beliefs is totalitarian, not democratic. We can, we must, find solutions that expand, instead of taking away, our rights. Vote no I-735. Initiative 735 opens Pandora’s Box Initiative 735 allows censorship of both profit and nonprofit corporations. Government would be free to censor news, books, movies, music, and your favorite charity. If a corporation made it, government could censor it. Should we empower congressional Republicans to censor corporations including Planned Parenthood, Playboy, PETA and WashPIRG? Absolutely not. Should we empower congressional Democrats to censor CareNet, Fox News, National Organization for Marriage and the NRA? Absolutely not. Vote no I-735. We need more speech, not less To prohibit spending money on speech would severely hamper public discourse. The Founders wisely protected freedom of speech and press, even though the historic printing press cost money. The best protection for diverse speech is keeping centralized regulators like Congress from controlling the marketplace of ideas. Vote no I-735. We can require disclosures The Citizens United ruling allows government to require disclosure of political contributions. We can bolster disclosure requirements without amending the Constitution. Vote no I-735. |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $612,087.09 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
As of January 12, 2017, the support campaign for this initiative featured two ballot question committees, Fix Democracy First and Washington State Coalition to Amend the Constitution, that received a total of $612,087.09 in contributions. The support campaign spent $573,672.56.[17][18]
According to the secretary of state's website, no ballot question committees registered to oppose the initiative.[17]
According to reports through January 12, 2017, the top donor in support of this initiative, William H. Clapp, provided approximately eight percent of the campaign's total funds. He contributed $50,000 in cash donations.[17][18]
Support
Committees
The following ballot question committees registered to support this initiative as of January 12, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 12, 2017.[17][18]
Note: Committees that have less listed for either donations or expenditures than reported on the secretary of state's website were used to provide funds to other committees and were not designed to spend all of their money directly on a supporting or opposing campaign. Fix Democracy First provided $132,081.43 to the Washington State Coalition to Amend the Constitution. See Ballotpedia's campaign finance methodology below.
| Committee | Amount raised[19] | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Fix Democracy First | $158,186.03 | $128,574.78 |
| Washington State Coalition to Amend the Constitution | $585,982.49 | $568,429.21 |
| Total | $612,087.09 | $573,672.56 |
Top donors
As of January 12, 2017, the following were the top five donors in support of this initiative:[17][18]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| William H. Clapp | $50,000.00 |
| Harriet Bullitt | $40,000.00 |
| Public Citizen Inc. | $15,000.00 |
| Washington State Democrats | $11,380.21 |
| Jeffrey Clements | $11,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
- The Columbian said: "Again, I-735 would only make a recommendation to Washington’s congressional representatives. Real change will require lobbying congressional members and voting for candidates who favor campaign finance reform. Eventually, we hope, a groundswell of public opinion will lead to change that leaves room for grass-roots politics rather than having a system in which money equates speech."[20]
- The News Tribune said: “Initiative 735 is steeped in the same goal of bringing a little decency back to democracy, but its backers are content to take the slow road to reform. While I-735 amounts to social criticism via the ballot, it’s worthy of a yes vote. Gov. Jay Inslee and Washington’s Democratic congressional delegation agree. Rather than count on a more favorable court to overturn Citizens United, proponents of the initiative want to supersede the ruling via a constitutional amendment.”[21]
- The Olympian said: "But I-735 is worth a try — if nothing else, to tell our congressional delegation that voters want campaign reforms.”[22]
- Tri-City Herald said: "There are no penalties if this initiative is approved and our state lawmakers choose to ignore it. Supporters are hoping, though, that public pressure would be enough to get them to act. … This is an initiative we can back, and we hope it gets lawmakers’ attention.”[23]
- The Stranger said: “But the idea here is to get more and more lawmakers to promise to support the amendment until you hit the magic number you need.”[24]
Opposition
- Walla Walla Union-Bulletin said, "Voting for Initiative 735 is like being in favor of fairy dust. Sure, it might make you feel good to sprinkle it around as if you are doing something to bring about change, but it doesn’t work — it’s not real. ... Those who want the Citizens United decision to be rendered moot through a change in the Constitution should be lobbying their congressional representative. That’s how the system is supposed to work. Trying to “urge” elected officials to amend the U.S. Constitution through a ballot measure is ridiculous."[25]
- Yakima Herald said: "The measure sounds benign enough. The problem is, as worded it would not only limit the advocacy by “moneyed special interests” such as corporate entities, but also nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood and labor unions. This potentially casts too wide a net."[26]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 43 percent of respondents in support of and 21 percent opposed to Initiative 735. About 36 percent were undecided on the measure.[27]
- In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 48 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 18 percent. Undecided voters composed 36 percent of the sample.[28]
| Washington Initiative 735 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016 | 48.0% | 18.0% | 34.0% | +/-4.5 | 502 | ||||||||||||||
| Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2013 | 43.0% | 21.0% | 36.0% | +/-4.5 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 45.5% | 19.5% | 35% | +/-4.5 | 501 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Path to the ballot
Supporters were required to submit at least 246,372 valid signatures per version. The state Elections Division confirmed through a random sample of 333,040 signatures that sufficient valid signatures were submitted for Initiative Measure No. 735.[29] It now goes to the state House and Senate for consideration. The Legislature chooses whether to enact the measure, send it to the 2016 ballot alone or send it to the ballot alongside an alternative proposition.
Signatures were submitted for only one measure (Initiative Measure No. 735). The others for which signatures were not submitted were Initiative Measure Nos. 733 and 734.[30]
The legislature did not act on the initiative, which meant that, for Initiatives to the Legislature in Washington, the measure made the ballot on November 8, 2016.[31]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Bockwinkle Communications and Washington Signatures Now to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $129,337.47 was spent to collect the 246,372 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.52.
State profile
| Demographic data for Washington | ||
|---|---|---|
| Washington | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 7,160,290 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 66,456 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 77.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 3.6% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 7.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 1.3% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 5.2% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 12% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.4% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 32.9% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,062 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 14.4% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington
Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.[32]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Washington
- United States congressional delegations from Washington
- Public policy in Washington
- Influencers in Washington
- Washington fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Initiative 735 2016 Corporations. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Related measures
2016
No measures concerning Definition of a corporation are certified for the ballot in 2016. They will be listed below if and when any are certified for the ballot.
See also
External links
Basic information
Support
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," accessed July 10, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Washington Secretary of State, "Voters' Guide 2016 General Election," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Washington State House of Representatives," "Summary of Initiative 735," August 3, 2016
- ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative Measure No. 735," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," accessed July 10, 2014
- ↑ Hawaii Legislature, "H.C.R. No. 282," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Citizens United Rejected By Voters In Montana, Colorado," November 7, 2012
- ↑ Yes on 735, "Homepage," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Yes on 735, "Endorsements," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ Socialist Alternative, "Seattle Socialist Alternative 2016 Ballot Initiatives Recommendations," November 3, 2016
- ↑ Our Revolution, "Washington Initiative 735: “We the People," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ Represent.Us, "2016 initiatives," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ The Stranger, "Guest Editorial: To Get Rid of Citizens United, We Need Your Help on Initiative 735," December 7, 2015
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Crosscut.com, "Can Washington get money out of politics?" April 20, 2016
- ↑ First Amendment Defenders, "Homepage," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Washington Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Disclosure," accessed January 12, 2017
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Washington Public Disclosure Committee, "WA St. Coalition to Amendment the Constitution," accessed October 27, 2016
- ↑ Note: The totals listed below do not include in-kind donations, which are detailed in a separate section below.
- ↑ The Columbian, "In Our View: ‘Yes’ on Initiative 735," October 6, 2016
- ↑ The News Tribune, "We endorse: Saying no to I-1464, yes to I-735, is wise road to campaign finance reform," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The Olympian, "Good reasons for I-1464 & I-735 despite flaws," November 1, 2016
- ↑ Tri-City Herald, "Our Voice: Vote no on I-1464, I-1501; yes on I-735," September 29, 2016
- ↑ The Stranger, "The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election," October 18, 2016
- ↑ Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, "I-735 is nonsensical approach to lawmaking," August 24, 2016
- ↑ Yakima Herald, "Endorsements: Reject these ballot initiatives," October 20, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, "Thumbs up to minimum wage, risk protection, consumer fraud initiatives: Poll," August 17, 2016
- ↑ KOMO News, "Inslee, Clinton still atop latest polls in Washington state," October 24, 2016
- ↑ Wahkiakum County Eagle, "Campaign initiative goes to legislature," January 28, 2016
- ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed initiatives to the legislature - 2015," accessed February 11, 2016
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer Scott Duryea, "Phone interview with Office of the Washington Secretary of State," April 18, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
