40% Rule Causing Problems for Bond
As Mel Westbrook told me yesterday, and as reported in the PI today (School levy passing, but bond struggles), the bond may not pass because of the requirement that 40% rule. As I understand it, the bond needs not only at 60% "yes" vote (which it is getting without a problem) but also to have more than 90,000 votes cast on that issue in total, which is 40% of the total ballots cast in the Fall 2006 election.
With absentee ballots still in the mail, the bond may get enough votes to pass eventually, but it is far from certain.
What seems odd to me is that the levy is passing without a problem, yet these votes were on the same ballot. Does that mean some people voted on one issue but not on the other? Or maybe I don't completely understand the 40% turnout rule. Anyone want to enlighten me?
With absentee ballots still in the mail, the bond may get enough votes to pass eventually, but it is far from certain.
What seems odd to me is that the levy is passing without a problem, yet these votes were on the same ballot. Does that mean some people voted on one issue but not on the other? Or maybe I don't completely understand the 40% turnout rule. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Comments
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/200702/resPage2.htm
The reason the levy has already passed and not the bond is because they actually have different validation requirements. The difference in votes cast on both is only a difference of a few hundred votes (377 at last count).
The difference in the validation requirements is a bit tricky to explain, but here goes: There are 2 hurdles placed in front of the levies. A 60% supermajority and also the 40% validation rate, which is that 40% of those voting in the previous November election must cast ballots again so taxes aren't imposed upon an unknowing public. The 40% rate for this election is 90,000 and change. 60% of that number is just over 54,000.
For the levy to pass, it needs a YES majority of 60% and simply to have a MINIMUM YES VOTE NUMBER of that 54,000.
The bond, on the other hand, needs a YES majority of 60% and a MINIMUM TOTAL VOTE of the 90,000 and change number. If EXACTLY that number cast ballots and it passed at EXACTLY 60%, the YES votes would be that 54,000 number.
Completely and unnecessarily over-complicated. Hope this sheds some light.
I also disagree that special elections should do away with a supermajority rule.
First Requirement-
the special election must have 40%- of the voters voting in the last election.
Since a special election seems to revolve around one issue, not everyone is aware of all ramifications- and 40% isn't really that many- obviously not even half.
Second requirement- to pass- 60% of that 40% voting, must vote for the levy/issue whatever, to pass.
So say you have 100 people voting in the November election- but only 40 people vote in your special election. Still a valid election.
Out of those 40 people-voting- you need 24 people or 60% of that 40% to vote FOR your issue.
If 24 people vote for it- then it passes.
Since it is difficult to get contributions, organized opposition, etc for special elections and since virtually all of those 40 people who are voting have a vested interest in getting the issue passed, it seems to me, that the "supermajority" rule, is reasonable and fair.
I am not going to compare it to other measures- because I do not use the technique that because Johnny fudged the rule, that means it is equally applicable to all.
But the rule makes sense to me
Basically, the day of the election you get the in-person results, then two days after you get most of the absentee results. This was a mostly absentee election, hence, the turnout numbers didn't cross 90k until today.
My personal opinion is that the legislature should back off the supermajority plus 40% turnout threshold requirements. And at the same time we would make many grumpy voters happy if we put these measure on regular November ballots.
More important than any of this, though, is getting the legislature to fully fund our schools, as many have said. We shouldn't need to keep voting to keep our schools functioning and safe.
Why do we have special elections for the school funding issues? Why not just put them on the ballot in November? It's not like the district didn't know they were coming.
A special election may be called and the time therefor fixed by the board of school directors, by giving notice thereof by publication in the manner provided by law for giving notices of general elections, at which special election the proposition authorizing such excess levy shall be submitted in such form as to enable the voters favoring the proposition to vote "yes" and those opposed thereto to vote "no".
The RCW doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for using general elections to approve these levies. My read at least. I am not a lawyer.