Crosscut solicited articles of 600 to 1,000 words for and against major initiatives and other issues on the November general ballot election ballot. We are publishing the articles together, with the argument in favor on top and the opposition argument below. You can jump to the opposition article by clicking the link below.
These articles are in support of, and then an argument, against state Initiative 1631.
The ballot title says: The City of Seattle’s Proposition 1 concerns renewing and enhancing services to achieve equity in educational outcomes. This proposition would replace two expiring levies and initially fund expanded early learning and preschool, college and K-12 education support, K-12 student health, and job readiness opportunities, as provided in Ordinance 125604. Consistent with RCW 84.55, it would increase regular property taxes for seven years. The 2019 tax increase, up to $0.365/$1,000 of assessed value, would be used to compute limitations for subsequent levies, with 1% annual increases. Qualifying seniors and others would be exempt under RCW 84.36.381.
Voters are asked to say yes or no.
For Seattle Proposition 1
Let's close the academic achievement gap
Former Mayor Tim Burgess was the primary architect of Seattle’s preschool program.
Lauren Hipp is Senior Campaign Director at MomsRising.
Seattle is poised to close the academic opportunity gap negatively impacting many of our children. And that would be cause for a joyous celebration, because it would help fulfill our belief that every child can learn and reach their full potential, regardless of their neighborhood, income, home language or color of their skin.
This harmful, long-present academic opportunity gap has denied many of our children what they need to thrive. The gap is crystal clear at the beginning of kindergarten when, through no fault of their own, more than half of our city’s children show up already behind. It’s clear when children in the third grade can’t read at grade level, a critical predictor of student success over the long-term. It’s clear when middle and high school kids lose interest, drop out, aren’t able to graduate.
Closing this gap is the right thing to do for our children and families and the right thing to do for the future of Seattle. Our long-term economic sustainability requires a growing and skilled work force, an imperative that is made more difficult when we don’t prepare all of our children for success.
Seattle voters have the chance in November’s election to take a bold step toward closing the academic opportunity gap by approving Proposition 1, the city government’s Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy.
Here’s how.
Passage of the levy will continue the expansion of the Seattle Preschool Program — rated one of the nation’s highest quality early learning efforts — so that 2,500 of our 3- and 4-year old children can be served annually. The most recent independent evaluation of the program found strong classroom and instructional quality that surpasses national Head Start, surpasses Washington State’s Early Achievers’ child care and preschool programs, and matches or beats what is seen in longer running and nationally recognized preschool programs in New York City, Boston, San Antonio, and New Jersey.
Providing high-quality preschool is a rock-solid, proven investment and Seattle has clearly demonstrated its ability to deliver. Our littlest learners, their families and the whole city will benefit as these children prepare to enter kindergarten and receive the strong and fair start they deserve. We’ve been in our preschool classrooms many, many times and we’ve seen first-hand that they’re working.
Passage of the levy will continue enhanced academic support for K-12 students requiring additional help through targeted math or literacy tutoring and crucial family support services. Because of the services this levy provides, Seattle middle schools lead the state in closing the academic opportunity gap. This levy provides the funds for highly personal, student-focused academic services that go way beyond what our public schools are able to provide. And, funding for these services is awarded through a rigorous process that sets specific, measurable outcomes. Few city government programs have this level of accountability.
Passage of the levy will continue the in-school health clinics in our city’s middle and high schools, establish four new clinics, one of which will especially serve LGBTQ youth, and continue mental health screenings in elementary schools. These clinics provide a full range of medical services, vaccinations, and mental health assessments. An independent assessment of the clinics showed that students who use these clinics have better school attendance and improved grade point averages compared to students who don’t. Providing in-school clinics is the right thing to do for student health and they boost academic achievement.
Passage of the levy also provides resources to support Seattle’s growing homeless student population — 4,280 students according to state officials in 2017-2018, which is eight times more students than recorded in 2010. It will also fund access to childcare for families experiencing homelessness.
Finally, passage of the levy will fund Seattle Promise, Mayor Jenny Durkan’s plan to provide two free years at Seattle Colleges for graduates of our public high schools. In the next five years, Washington state will add 750,000 new jobs, most of which will require a post-secondary degree or credential. Yet today, only 31 percent of Washington high school graduates pursue post-secondary credentials. Seattle Promise will help prepare our kids for the jobs of the future.
If approved by voters, the levy will replace two other city government education levies that expire in December and will raise $620 million over the next seven years. The yearly cost to the owner of a median assessed value home in Seattle will be $248, about $20 per month (just $9 per month more than the expiring levies). Since this calculation is based on a median valued home ($650,000), half of homeowners will pay more, half will pay less. Of course, commercial property owners will also pay if the levy is approved.
We urge you to vote to sustain these vital education investments by approving Proposition 1 and open the doors of opportunity for our children and families. It is an investment that will pay huge dividends as our children grow and become the leaders of our city. It is an investment that directly addresses the education inequities that have persisted for decades. It is an investment that strengthens our commitment to the importance of public education as the city government and Seattle Public Schools work collaboratively to prepare our children for their future and ours.
Against I-1639
If common sense is the goal, gun initiative fails
Dave Workman is senior editor at TheGunMag.com, owned by the Second Amendment Foundation.
Dave Workman is senior editor at TheGunMag.com, owned by the Second Amendment Foundation.
When the four largest rank-and-file law enforcement organizations in Washington state turn thumbs down on a measure that is touted as a crime-fighting tool, there must be something seriously wrong with it.
Ditto when the editorial pages of at least four newspapers — Spokane Spokesman-Review, Walla Walla Union Bulletin, Centralia Chronicle and Vancouver Columbian — encourage their readers to vote “No” on Initiative 1639, the only gun control measure on a ballot anywhere in the United States this year.
According to grassroots Second Amendment activists opposing it, I-1639 is 30 pages of extremist gun control disguised as “gun safety.” It is opposed by the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association (WSPTA), Washington State Sheriffs Association (WSSA), Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs (WACOPS) and Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA).
As noted by the Spokesman-Review, “The…initiative is chock-full of rules and regulations of questionable merit. It’s a wish list of gun-control advocates that would overburden the constitutional right to bear arms.”
Heading that list is a provision to raise the minimum age for purchasing a semiautomatic rifle of any type from 18 to 21. To the firearms community, this looks suspiciously like a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. After all, they observe, young adults whose rights would be impaired are considered mature enough to enlist in the military, get married and vote. Incredibly, initiative proponents expect 18-20-year-olds to vote against their own rights.
And we are, after all, talking about rights here, not firearms. The right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms is enshrined in both the federal and state constitutions. While many do not agree with the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, there is no misunderstanding Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution, which declares the right to bear arms in defense of one’s self or the state is an individual right.
Since we’re talking about rights, I-1639 mandates that would-be buyers of semiautomatic rifles waive their right to medical privacy. It says so right there in Section 7: “A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.”
I-1639 includes a 10-day waiting period and a so-called “enhanced background check.” One wonders just how this same mandate might fare with readers if it were applied to some other right, say reproductive rights?
The initiative includes a fee for the additional paperwork required for this check. Initiative opponents, including WSLEFIA — they know far more about genuine gun safety than Seattle-based gun control advocates — compare this to an unconstitutional “poll tax.”
One must show proof that he/she has completed a firearms training course within the past five years. Opponents consider this tantamount to an unconstitutional “literacy test,” once used to prevent minorities from voting.
The initiative would also remove language from a Department of Fish and Wildlife gun safety brochure that reminds gun owners of the state’s 35-year-old preemption statute, which placed sole authority for gun regulation in the hands of the Legislature. Right now, Seattle, Edmonds and King County are trying to challenge that law by passing their own “safe storage” requirements for firearms.
Why would I-1639 authors want to keep state citizens ignorant of this important statute? What’s that got to do with “gun safety?”
I-1639 has a “secure storage” requirement, but also says this: “Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.” How’s that for a legal “Catch 22?”
Critics say this requirement literally criminalizes being a crime victim. If a firearm is stolen and used to harm another person or commit a crime, the gun owner could be held criminally liable, they believe. That doesn’t happen to car owners whose stolen vehicles are used in crimes, or fatal crashes.
The initiative invents a new crime: “Community endangerment.” This new crime may be prosecuted either as a gross misdemeanor or Class C felony for violating this undefined “secure gun storage” requirement.
The Vancouver Columbian noted in its opposition, “We strongly encourage gun owners to use appropriate storage methods, but this mandate would be difficult to enforce and would inhibit the ability of homeowners to use their weapons in self-defense.”
And then there is the troubling definition of a “semiautomatic assault rifle.” The initiative authors simply cut-and-pasted the common definition of a “semiautomatic rifle” and inserted the word “assault” to literally capture every self-loading firearm that’s ever been manufactured, and hereafter declare it to be an “assault rifle.”
There are several different mandates in I-1639, which suggests to critics that it violates the single-subject rule. But maybe Jeff Merrill, president of the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association summed it up best.
“Local, county and state law enforcement officers from across Washington are united in opposition to I-1639,” he wrote in his group’s opposition statement. “Concerns include the inability to enforce ‘feel good’ provisions within the proposal. Unenforceable gun control laws are not effective. Individual accountability, stiff penalties for firearms violations and consistent, swift court sentences are far better deterrents than adding additional restrictions to law abiding firearms owners.”
