E2SSB 5271

SENATE BILL REPORT
E2SSB 5271

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As Passed Senate, February 19, 2008

Title: An act relating to modifying the dates on which a special election may be held.

Sponsors: Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections (originally sponsored by Senators Pridemore, Benton, Kline, Swecker, Roach and Rasmussen).

Committee Activity: Government Operations & Elections: 2/01/07, 2/13/07 [DPS]; 1/29/08, 1/31/08 [DP2S].

Majority Report: That Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5271 be substituted therefor, and the second substitute bill do pass.Signed by Senators Fairley, Chair; Oemig, Vice Chair; Roach, Ranking Minority Member; Benton, Kline, McDermott, Pridemore and Swecker.

Background: The county auditor, upon receiving a request from the county, city, town, or district, may call a special election to be held on one of the following dates: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February; the second Tuesday in March; the fourth Tuesday in April; or the third Tuesday in May.

Summary of Engrossed Second Substitute Bill: The March and May special elections are eliminated.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony on Second Substitute: PRO: This is an important bill. When you have an election nearly every month as in some of the smaller counties, housekeeping becomes a real issue. The purpose of this bill is to have one election in February, one in May, one in August, and one in November. This should allow the election administrators time to do the work they need to do and should save money. There is a real crunch currently that makes it very difficult to update voter registrations between elections. There will be an amendment to change the dates to the second Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in May. We support the move to two dates but are still working to decide which two dates are the best for everyone involved.

CON: One solution is to keep four elections and spread them out further. There are two main sources of funding for education; one is the state Legislature and the other is local elections school districts can hold. Our concern is if we take away two of the four special election dates all tax issues will be on the same two ballots and will thus be competing with each other. Our worry is that our levies will be able to pass with a simple majority but education bonds need a super majority to pass. We are working with the auditors and other interested parties but we continue to have concerns.

Persons Testifying: PRO: Greg Kimsey, Washington Association of County Auditors; Corky Mattingly, Yakima County Auditor; Sam Reed, Secretary of State; Dan Steele, Washington State School Directors Association; Barbara Mertens, Washington Association of School Administrators.

CON: Lucinda Young, Washington Education Association.