2008: Initiative 985 | Overview

On the ballot

Ballot Title:
Filed on:
Before Voters In: November of
Sponsor:
Fate:
Election Results: Yes: No:
Election Turnout:
Petition Drive:
  • ______ signatures were submitted to the Secretary of State’s Elections Annex (see qualification announcement).
  • Validation was conducted by random sample check. _____ of the I-960 signatures (a __% sample) were checked. From that inspection, it was determined that the measure had an invalidation rate of ____%.
  • A minimum of 224,880 valid signatures were required to qualify an initiative to the people in 2007 (8% of turnout in 2004 gubernatorial election)
Complete Text: Available (PDF)
Ballot Summary:

____ County-by-county election results

Counties that voted yes are shown in gray; counties that voted no are shown in purple.

See full breakdown (abstract in XLS)

Explanatory statement

The following is the explanatory statement prepared by the Attorney General’s office in advance of the November ____ general election.

 

Source: Archived Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet

Fiscal impact statement

The following is the fiscal impact statement prepared by the Office of Financial Management in advance of the November ____ general election.

 

Source: Archived Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet; Archived OFM website

Voter’s pamphlet argument against ____

The following is the text of the argument that appeared in the _____ voter’s pamphlet urging a no vote on ____, including the rebuttal.

Source: Archived Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet

You are here:

All aboard for a reliable commute

What we do

Permanent Defense works to protect Washington by building a first line of defense against threats to the common wealth and Constitution of the Evergreen State — like Tim Eyman's initiative factory. Learn more.

Protecting Washington Since 2002

We’re social

Follow Permanent Defense on Facebook and Twitter for campaign and project updates.

Permanent Defense on Facebook Permanent Defense on Twitter