For some years, there has been no Washington state Voters Pamphlet for primary elections, although the state continues to print and mail a Voters Pamphlet for general elections. However, on March 1, the Senate Ways & Means Committee passed SB 5637, which authorizes a Voters Pamphlet again for primaries, if funding is made available.
Washington state Voters Pamphlets are very useful for candidates for federal and state office, because they contain candidate statements. Thanks to Christopher Roberts for this news.
The distribution of a Voter’s Pamphlet at the general election is a requirement of the state constitution. The initiative and referendum are considered to be the People directly exercising legislative authority, and the voters pamphlet is the means of informing them of the legislation they will be voting on, equivalent to the printing of bills, and debate before voting on bills in Olympia. The inclusion of candidate statements has relatively little incremental cost, and is required under statute implementing the voter’s pamphlet for ballot measures.
The constitution requires sending of the pamphlet to each residence in Washington, so even if they wanted to cut costs by using internet distribution, on even an opt-out basis by registered voters, they couldn’t.
Printing of a voter’s pamphlet for the primary may have been a temporary measure. The code sections regulating it (RCW 29A.32.036) were added in 2004 when the Pick-A-Party Primary was implemented, and simply state that if the SOS distributes a voter’s pamphlet before the primary, it must explain the Pick-A-Party primary and its restrictions on the free exercise of the right to vote.
That archaic section (RCW 29A.32.036) is repealed by SB 5637, and likely by the omnibus cleanup bill.
While current statute is permissive with regard to printing of a local voter’s pamphlet before primary elections, there is no permission for the Secretary of State to do so. In the past, any such pamphlet must have been done as part of the Secretary of State’s role as chief election officer (and subject to the appropriation of funds to pay for it).
The results from the Gonzalez-Danielson state supreme court contest is enough reason (and there are many other reasons; nothing is so important as voters) to do this.