I've been tracking I-1351 for most of the day.
At 2 pm, they were neck and neck with Yes- 50.07% and No-49.93%.
But as the vote totals go up - Yes had about 7500 more votes at 4 pm, then up 9,000 votes by 5:30 pm and at the last vote count, Yes had over 11,000 votes and has its biggest percentage lead at ....64%.
King County still has 121,000 votes left to count, Snohomish has 58,000, Spokane has 13,000 and Pierce has 9,000.
King is solidly yes but Snohomish and Spokane are barely yes.
But the trend is to the Yes side.
For me, this is very reminiscent of watching the vote counts for 1240, the charter school initiative.* Except that, day after day, the trend never changed. This one is changing.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the Times had not one but two whiny editorials today (and truly, there is no other way to describe them).
One was about 1351 and how Governor Inslee said that he had voted no on 1351 BUT had not let voters know and that shows a lack of leadership.
"Inslee might have wanted to let voters make up their own minds, but that's no excuse for sitting back and not doing what voters expect him to do: lead."
*The other editorial was even more laughable - "Give charter schools time to succeed."
They are unhappy that there is a lawsuit against the charter school law. Could that be that they watched the recent oral arguments in the Supreme Court and got worried?
"The court could take several months to issue a decision, which could derail this important venture into charter schools - and that should be avoided."
How? By telling the Supreme Court to drop it? Hurry up? They don't say.
They also quoted an older Rand study to prop up their charter support rather than the more present-day CREDO study.
In Washington, the majority of voters made it clear they want to give charter schools the opportunity to succeed.
By the slimmest of margins. In fact, many think one reason the Court took the case is that very slim margin. (But, of course, the Times will bemoan a slim margin if 1351 wins.)
As one commenter at the Times rightly points out - this isn't about whether charters work or not. It's about whether a law is constitutional.