Ballot tax statement was OK on one ballot, not the other?

Published 1:30 am Friday, August 23, 2024

I must say it is ironic to see The Herald Editorial Board, noting that as our state Supreme Court recently confirmed that “voters were due what state law provides: a one-sentence statement on the ballot that provides a very basic understanding of the financial consequences of each ballot measure” (“Short statement could make all difference on ballot,” The Herald Aug. 13). Ironic that the Herald recently endorsed the Proposition 1 Everett Port Expansion measure, which did not include the information that it was a new tax on all of Snohomish County (mostly rural) beyond existing port districts.

Even our own Snohomish county Superior Court refused to allow the ballot statement to include the word “tax” indicating financial consequences for homeowners. As Alice would say. “Curiouser and curiouser!”

Christine Wakefield Nichols

Snohomish