Washington Ballot Measures (2015)

[ElectionsGuy]

Measure 1: Decreases the sales tax rate, unless the legislature refers a two-thirds vote for tax increases amendment to the ballot
Measure 2: Toughens penalties for trafficking in rare animal species
Measure 3: Asks voters whether to repeal or maintain an oil response tax and oil spill administration tax on crude oil or petroleum products at a marine terminal or a bulk oil terminal
Measure 4: Asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a fee on medical marijuana users entering the patient database
Measure 5: Asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a gas tax increase of 11.9 cents
Measure 6: Asks voters whether to repeal or maintain the legislature's removal of tax preferences for certain manufacturers

1: Yes
2: No
3: Repealed
4: Repealed
5: Repealed
6: Maintained

[Sumner 1868]

1: No
2: Yes
3: Maintained
4: Maintained
5: Maintained
6: Repealed

[Intell]

1. No
2. Yes
3. Maintained
4. Repealed
5. Maintained
6. Maintained

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Number 1 is unconstitutional, as two-thirds increases have been ruled illegal by the State Supreme Court. The constitution is product of a man notorious in Washington state for stuffing ballot initiates with populist low tax measures who is currently being investigated for corruption. If Washingtonians are so sad about having a high sales tax, my advice would be to, err, not be so stupid and bring in an income tax. Yes, I know it's "cool" to rely on one tax for all your revenue, but it's also dumb as hell.

2 is obviously good, because I imagine ports like Seattle bring in a lot of such goods. Destroy the profits of preachers, defend the endangered. (Not to pick on him, but EG's "no" brings another blow to the idea libertarians are "socially liberal".)

The rest are dumbarse advisory questions so don't actually matter, but fwiw 3 is good and will hopefully kill off as much fossil exports as possible, 4 is insane money grabbing from the sick that should be blocked, 5 is sadly recessive but necessary (Washingtonians have dug their own grave in that respects) and 6 seems like ludicrous waffling with the tax code which is normally a bad idea.

[VPH]

1: Yes
2: No
3: Maintained
4: Maintained
5: Maintained
6: Maintained

[Crumpets]

1. No - Not Tim Eyman
2. Yes - There's basically no opposition to this, and as long as I get to keep my antique piano, I'm good.
3. Maintained - shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place
4. Maintained - shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place
5. Maintained - shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place
6. Maintained - shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place

[Goldwater]

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: Repeal, although these are pointless because they are just advisory votes so they hot legally binding
4: See 3
5: See 3
6: See 3

(I've actually already voted on these, FTR.)

[RI]

I voted:

1) No (f[inks] Eyman)
2) Yes
3) Maintain
4) Maintain
5) Maintain
6) Maintain

I always vote maintain on the advisory votes because they shouldn't be voted on in the first place. The budget shouldn't be ruled by direct democracy, and the questions are worded in such a horrendously biased manner.

[dead0man]

2. Yes - There's basically no opposition to this, and as long as I get to keep my antique piano, I'm good.

You can, but you might be committing a felony.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if your piano is more than 15% ivory (I have no idea, but I bet it's close), less than 100 years old or you lack paper work, you're funked.

Which is why I'm voting no on number 2.

1.yes
2.no
3.maintain
4.repeal
5.repeal
6.repeal

[Lyin' Steve]

1.  No.  Lowering our primary source of state revenue is disastrous.  Measures like these put us on the path to California.
2.  No, because as a previous poster pointed out, the text of this measure does a lot more than the tagline, hurting innocent people in addition to smugglers.
3-6 should all be maintained except for 4, which I can't imagine any justification for.  6 in particular seems like populist garbage.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Repeal
4. Repeal
5. Repeal
6. Maintain

[Clark Kent]

1. Yes
2. No
3. Repeal
4. Repeal
5. Repeal
6. Maintain

[Ebowed]

1. No
2. Yes
3. Maintained
4. Repealed
5. Maintained
6. Maintained

[Crumpets]

2. Yes - There's basically no opposition to this, and as long as I get to keep my antique piano, I'm good.

You can, but you might be committing a felony.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if your piano is more than 15% ivory (I have no idea, but I bet it's close), less than 100 years old or you lack paper work, you're funked.

Which is why I'm voting no on number 2.

I'm pretty sure it's over 100 years old, but I was under the impression that this law would only affect the sale of goods, not just possession.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

So maybe you don't want to sell your old piano, but can't you imagine a situation where a person that owns an old, undocumented item might want to sell it at some point?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So maybe you don't want to sell your old piano, but can't you imagine a situation where a person that owns an old, undocumented item might want to sell it at some point?

 omelettes and eggs come to mind.  No policy is perfect and will always have some "downsides" but I think the continued existence of endangered species and vulnerable ecosystems plundered by poachers trumps the monetary gains of our hypothetical antique piano collector.

[dead0man]

So maybe you don't want to sell your old piano, but can't you imagine a situation where a person that owns an old, undocumented item might want to sell it at some point?

 omelettes and eggs come to mind.  No policy is perfect and will always have some "downsides" but I think the continued existence of endangered species and vulnerable ecosystems plundered by poachers trumps the monetary gains of our hypothetical antique piano collector.

Or, perhaps, the law could be written with the people that own grandma's piano into account.  Grandma's piano isn't ever going to hurt a spotted owl and punishing some schmuck that tries to sell it on Craig's List isn't going to save one either.

[SATW]

1: Yes
2: No
3: Repealed
4: Repealed
5: Repealed
6: Maintained

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So maybe you don't want to sell your old piano, but can't you imagine a situation where a person that owns an old, undocumented item might want to sell it at some point?

 omelettes and eggs come to mind.  No policy is perfect and will always have some "downsides" but I think the continued existence of endangered species and vulnerable ecosystems plundered by poachers trumps the monetary gains of our hypothetical antique piano collector.

Or, perhaps, the law could be written with the people that own grandma's piano into account.  Grandma's piano isn't ever going to hurt a spotted owl and punishing some schmuck that tries to sell it on Craig's List isn't going to save one either.

Huh, I actually looked this measure up; and what do you know, under a subsection:

Exemptions: antiques and musical instruments

Granny's piano is saved!!

[DavidB.]

1: Yes
2: No
3: Repeal
4: Repeal
5: Repeal
6: Repeal