An Olympia man has filed a complaint against Thurston County for sending out a mailer that he alleges promotes the passage of a new tax on the Nov. 7 ballot, rather than just informing voters about the tax.
The mailer in question explains Proposition 1, which would raise sales tax two-tenths of 1% for a "Public Safety Tax."
If approved, 75% of funds received would fund local law enforcement and 25% would go towards prosecution, public defense services and election security infrastructure. County documents indicate 60% of the money received by the tax could be retained by the county and 40% would be distributed to local cities on a per-capita basis.
J.R. Baker submitted his complaint to the Public Disclosure Commission on Oct. 19 and it is still under review, according to PDC spokesperson Natalie Johnson. It will remain in that status for up to 90 days while staff assess whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation, she said. Baker's complaint was the only one of its kind filed as of Thursday, she added.
"From my perspective, it's a pretty blatant attempt to influence the election," Baker said. "It doesn't really serve to inform people about the proposition, but really uses their language that they use for justification of putting this on the ballot."
Thurston County sent the mailer to 129,275 households on Oct. 16, according to county spokesperson Meghan Porter. Postage for the mailers cost $29,776 and printing cost $11,866 from the county's general fund, she said.
Porter said the mailer is not intended to promote the passage of the Public Safety Tax, but rather to provide the public with facts and information on the proposition. She said it was approved by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and county manager in late September.
"The Public Disclosure Commission has routinely advised and held that respect to the election-related publications, one jurisdiction-wide objective and fair presentation of the facts per ballot measure is appropriate," Porter said.
PDC enforcement guidelines say the use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns is prohibited. However, there are some exceptions in the guidelines, which includes the language Porter mentioned.
Baker disagrees with the county interpretation of the guidelines and the law. A sticking point for him is the backside of the mailer, which lists statements that are similar or identical to those listed on the resolution that the county commissioners passed in July.
The mailer says additional funding would increase the number of deputies in the Sheriff's Office as well as support law enforcement services and infrastructure. It also says more funding is "necessary" to provide additional prosecuting and public defense services to address increasing caseloads.
Additionally, the mailer says more funding is "needed" to provide adequate infrastructure for elections security.
Baker called the mailer an unnecessary and illegal public expense, especially given that the official voter pamphlet provides similar information.
"People either vote or they don't vote and if they vote, they probably look at the voter pamphlet and it sort of gives them an indication," he said.
As far as the proposition goes, Baker said he's generally not opposed to tax increases but he's concerned about the county establishing dedicated funds for law enforcement.
Though that's his position, he said he felt motivated to submit the complaint about the mailer because he's opposed to this type of activity. He hopes the county and other jurisdictions get the message and refrain from doing this.
"I have watched public agencies spend money trying to promote things," Baker said. "To me, government agencies shouldn't be doing that sort of thing, promoting a particular position in an election."
