No Supermajority No On 25

  The Divergent Paths of County Fiscal Governance: Inflation Triggers, the IPD, and Supermajority Mandates in Pierce and Clark Counties The structural architecture of local tax policy in Washington state is built upon a delicate balance between local autonomy and state-level statutory constraints. While Washington's property tax laws establish strict baseline limits, counties that have adopted "Home Rule" charters possess the legal authority to construct their own fiscal guardrails. A comparative analysis of Pierce County’s current regulatory framework and Clark County’s proposed Charter Amendment 25 highlights two vastly different constitutional philosophies. While Pierce County operates within a variable model where supermajority requirements are dynamically triggered by macroeconomic inflation data, Clark County’s proposed amendment represents a structural shift toward an absolute fiscal barrier, stripping macroeconomic metrics like the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) ...

  Operational Governance and Fiscal Dynamics: A Comparative Analysis of Clark County and Pierce County, Washington In the state of Washington, local governance is anchored by seven "home rule" charter counties. By adopting home rule charters, these jurisdictions bypass standard state statutory configurations, allowing voters to engineer local government structures tailored to their distinct regional needs. Clark County and Pierce County represent two of the most structurally distinct home rule models in the state. While both counties face the shared economic realities of Washington’s municipal finance laws, they operate under fundamentally different leadership frameworks. This structural variance deeply influences their legislative dependence, administrative execution, and fiscal resilience—dynamics that are further complicated by how structural constraints limit property tax tools like banked capacity and local option taxes. Structural and Governance Frameworks The fo...

  The Legal Fragility of Local Supermajority Tax Requirements: From Pierce County’s Paradox to Clark County’s Constitutional Frontier   Introduction The intersection of county home-rule authority and statutory tax delegation is one of the most fiercely debated arenas in Washington municipal law. Under Article XI, Section 4 of the Washington State Constitution, counties are permitted to adopt home-rule charters to govern matters of local concern. However, this local autonomy remains strictly subordinate to the general laws of the state. When local jurisdictions attempt to alter the voting thresholds for statutorily delegated powers—specifically by requiring a supermajority vote to enact local taxes—they enter a precarious legal gray area . While proponents view these measures as vital safeguards for fiscal restraint, state jurisprudence strongly indicates that local supermajority mandates lack definitive constitutional validation and are highly vulnerable to legal challen...

 Honorable Prosecuting Attorneys;        My name is Bradley Branham, and I currently serve on the committee responsible for preparing the opposition statement for Amendment 25 (formerly 26‑08), concerning supermajority taxation.        During the Clark County Council’s council time meeting on June 17, 2026, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Smith and Councilor Little discussed the availability of legal information related to potential Clark County Charter amendments appearing on the upcoming ballot. In that discussion, CDPA Smith stated that voters could “sleuth it out.”        In that spirit, I am interested in all public information you can provide me concerning the legal analysis of Amendment 25  ( formerly 26-08). My focused questions: What is the legal basis for the Clark County Council’s taxing authority under RCW 36.32.120(4), and how does that authority apply to a home‑rule charter county? Does a county c...

 

 PO Box 272 Battle Ground, WA, 98604 friendsoffiscalresponsibility@gmail.com (360) 524-3164