The scenario involves the potential for a ballot initiative in Washington State to address a specific environmental regulation. The question tests the understanding of the signature requirements for qualifying an initiative to the legislature. Washington State law, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.040, dictates the number of valid signatures required. For an initiative to the legislature, the number of signatures must equal at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Governor at the preceding general election. The most recent gubernatorial election prior to the hypothetical scenario would be the 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. In that election, the total votes cast for Governor were 4,158,870. Therefore, the required number of signatures is 8% of 4,158,870. Calculation: \(0.08 \times 4,158,870 = 332,709.6\) Since a fraction of a signature is not possible, the number of signatures must be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Thus, the required number of valid signatures is 332,710. This figure is crucial for determining if the initiative qualifies for placement on the ballot or for legislative consideration. The process ensures that an initiative has broad support across the state before it can be formally considered by the legislature. Understanding these signature thresholds is fundamental to the practice of direct democracy in Washington State.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, grants the people the power to propose laws and to approve or reject any act of the legislature. This is known as the initiative and referendum process. For an initiative to qualify for the ballot, proponents must gather signatures from a number of registered voters equal to at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. This signature threshold is crucial for ensuring broad public support. Once signatures are submitted to the Secretary of State, they are verified. If sufficient valid signatures are collected, the initiative is placed on the ballot for voter consideration. The Washington State Legislature also has the power to propose laws and constitutional amendments, which are then subject to voter approval or rejection, but the question specifically focuses on the initiative process and its signature requirement. The number of signatures required for a referendum on a legislative act is lower, at four percent of the votes cast for governor in the preceding election, highlighting a distinction in the process for challenging existing laws versus proposing new ones.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, reserves the power of the initiative and referendum to the people. Initiative 960, passed in 2005, established specific procedural requirements for measures proposed by initiative or referendum to qualify for the ballot and for their subsequent passage. One key aspect of Initiative 960 is the requirement for a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Office of the Chief Economist at the Office of Financial Management for all proposed initiatives or referendums that are estimated to have a fiscal impact on state or local government. This statement must be available to the public prior to the signature gathering phase. Furthermore, for a statewide initiative to be placed on the ballot, it requires signatures from registered voters equal to at least eight percent of the votes cast for governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election. For a referendum, the threshold is four percent. These signature requirements are a critical hurdle for citizen-led legislative proposals. The process also involves filing with the Secretary of State and adherence to strict timelines for signature collection and verification. The fiscal impact statement requirement ensures that voters are informed about the potential financial consequences of proposed measures, promoting a more informed electorate. The distinction between initiative and referendum signature thresholds is a crucial element of Washington’s direct democracy framework.

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) oversees campaign finance and lobbying regulations. Under Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17A), individuals and organizations making contributions or expenditures in connection with a state or local election are subject to reporting requirements. Specifically, RCW 42.17A.255 outlines the thresholds for reporting. For individuals making contributions to a candidate or a political committee, the threshold for reporting is \$25 or more in a calendar year. Similarly, RCW 42.17A.260 details the reporting obligations for political committees, including disclosure of contributions received and expenditures made. When a political committee receives contributions totaling \$25 or more from a single source within a reporting period, that contribution must be itemized, identifying the source and amount. Expenditures made by a political committee that exceed \$50 in a reporting period must also be itemized. The question revolves around the aggregate reporting threshold for an individual contributing to multiple candidates or committees within a single election cycle, and the disclosure requirements for a political committee receiving such contributions. The scenario describes an individual, Anya, who makes several small contributions throughout an election cycle. The total of these contributions is \$150. This amount, when aggregated over the election cycle, exceeds the \$25 threshold for an individual to be reported by the recipient committee if the aggregate amount from that individual reaches \$25 or more. The question then asks about the disclosure obligation of a political committee that receives these contributions from Anya. According to RCW 42.17A.255, any contribution of \$25 or more from a single person must be reported by the recipient. Since Anya’s aggregate contributions total \$150, which is well above the \$25 threshold, the political committee receiving these funds must disclose Anya as a contributor, along with the total amount of her contributions. The reporting period for which the committee is seeking to disclose these contributions is the final report for the election cycle. Therefore, the committee must report Anya’s total contribution of \$150.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, grants the people the power to propose laws and to approve or reject at the polls any Act, item, veto, part, or part of any bill passed by the Legislature. This is known as the initiative and referendum process. Initiative 732, enacted in Washington State, proposed a significant shift in the state’s tax structure by implementing a progressive income tax and reducing the state sales tax. The initiative’s proponents gathered the required number of signatures to place it on the ballot for voter consideration. The process of qualifying an initiative for the ballot involves submitting a sufficient number of valid signatures from registered voters to the Secretary of State, as prescribed by state law. For a statewide initiative, this threshold is a percentage of the votes cast for governor in the preceding general election. Once qualified, the initiative becomes a law if approved by a majority of the voters. The question asks about the mechanism by which an initiative, after qualifying for the ballot through signature gathering, becomes law in Washington State. This occurs through a direct vote of the electorate. The Washington Constitution and related statutes outline the procedures for initiative qualification and subsequent voter approval or rejection. Therefore, the correct mechanism is voter approval at the polls.

The scenario describes a situation involving the initiative process in Washington State, specifically concerning the signature gathering period for a proposed initiative to the legislature. Under Washington law, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.130, an initiative to the legislature requires signatures from a number of registered voters equal to at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. The question asks about the timeframe for collecting these signatures once the initiative has been filed with the Secretary of State and the ballot title and submission number have been assigned. RCW 29A.72.140 dictates that the proponents of an initiative have 10 months from the date of filing to submit the required signatures. Therefore, if an initiative is filed on April 15, 2023, the deadline for submission would be 10 months from that date. Counting 10 months from April 15, 2023, brings us to February 15, 2024. This period is crucial for ensuring sufficient voter participation and is a key procedural safeguard in the direct democracy process in Washington. The exact calculation is: April 15, 2023 + 10 months = February 15, 2024.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the power of the people to propose and enact laws and amendments through the initiative and referendum process. Initiative 1366, passed in 2014, addressed campaign finance by requiring that initiative petitions to propose a law to the legislature, if certified, would be presented to the legislature for its consideration. If the legislature did not act upon the initiative within a specified timeframe, the initiative would then be submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection. This mechanism is designed to ensure legislative consideration of citizen-proposed laws, providing a pathway for direct democracy. The question tests the understanding of how a certified initiative is processed under Washington law, particularly the role of the legislature in the process before it potentially reaches the ballot. The correct answer reflects this legislative referral and action requirement as a prerequisite for voter submission when an initiative is proposed to the legislature. The other options present scenarios that do not accurately represent the prescribed constitutional and statutory procedures for initiatives presented to the legislature. For instance, direct submission to voters without legislative review, or automatic placement on the ballot without any legislative action, are not the standard procedures for initiatives that are first presented to the legislature for consideration.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, grants the people the power of the initiative and referendum. The initiative process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments, which are then submitted to the voters for approval or rejection. For a statutory initiative to qualify for the ballot, proponents must collect a number of signatures equal to or exceeding eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. For a constitutional amendment initiative, the signature requirement is ten percent of the votes cast for governor in the preceding general election. The question asks about the signature threshold for a statutory initiative. The total number of votes cast for governor in the preceding general election in Washington State was 2,500,000. Therefore, the required number of signatures for a statutory initiative is 8% of 2,500,000. Calculation: \(0.08 \times 2,500,000 = 200,000\). This threshold ensures that initiatives have broad public support before appearing on the ballot, reflecting the democratic principle of direct citizen participation in lawmaking as enshrined in Washington’s constitution. This mechanism serves as a crucial check on legislative power and a vital avenue for citizen engagement in the state’s governance.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the legislative authority of the state. This section outlines the initiative and referendum process, which allows citizens to propose and vote on laws and constitutional amendments directly. The initiative process allows citizens to propose legislation or constitutional amendments, which, if sufficient signatures are gathered, are then submitted to the legislature or directly to the voters. Referendum allows voters to approve or reject laws passed by the legislature. The question focuses on the procedural requirements for a citizen-initiated measure to qualify for the ballot in Washington State. This involves gathering a specific number of signatures from registered voters. The number of signatures required for an initiative to the legislature or the people is determined by a percentage of the total votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. For an initiative proposing a law, the requirement is 4% of the total votes cast for governor. For an initiative proposing a constitutional amendment, the requirement is 6% of the total votes cast for governor. The scenario describes a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution. Therefore, the relevant percentage is 6%. The total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election were 2,500,000. To find the number of signatures required, we calculate 6% of 2,500,000. Calculation: \(0.06 \times 2,500,000 = 150,000\) Thus, 150,000 valid signatures are required. This process is governed by statutes like Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.040, which details the signature requirements and verification procedures for initiative measures. The distinction between a statutory initiative and a constitutional initiative is critical in determining the signature threshold, reflecting the higher bar for amending the fundamental law of the state compared to enacting or repealing ordinary legislation. The verification process, managed by the Secretary of State, ensures that only valid signatures from registered voters are counted towards the total.

The scenario describes a situation where a local initiative in Washington State is being challenged based on its compliance with the state’s referendum process. Specifically, the question probes the understanding of the signature verification timeline for referendums. Washington’s law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.120, mandates that the county auditor must complete the verification of signatures on a referendum petition within a specific timeframe. This timeframe is crucial for determining the validity and placement of the referendum on the ballot. The law states that the county auditor shall, within ten business days after the receipt of the petition, examine and count the signatures. If the petition is found to contain a sufficient number of valid signatures, it is then transmitted to the Secretary of State. The core of the question lies in understanding this ten-business-day window for verification by the county auditor. The other options represent incorrect timelines or processes that do not align with Washington State’s referendum signature verification procedures as outlined in the relevant statutes. For instance, a 30-day period is not specified for this initial verification, nor is a 5-day period for the entire process including transmission to the Secretary of State. The focus is on the auditor’s initial verification duty.

The scenario describes a situation where a political committee in Washington State is seeking to influence a local ballot measure. The question revolves around the reporting requirements for expenditures made to advocate for or against such a measure. Washington State law, specifically the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) regulations, mandates that individuals or committees making contributions or expenditures exceeding a certain threshold in connection with a ballot proposition must report these activities. For expenditures made to advocate for or against a ballot proposition, the reporting threshold is typically \$500 in a calendar year. If the committee’s total expenditures for advocating for or against the local ballot measure reach or exceed \$500, they are required to file a report with the PDC. The explanation of the threshold is crucial here. The calculation is not a numerical one but a conceptual application of the reporting threshold. If the committee spends \$450, they are below the threshold. If they spend \$550, they are above the threshold and must report. The key is that the law applies to the aggregate amount spent for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the ballot measure, regardless of whether it’s for direct advocacy or related activities. The question tests the understanding of when reporting obligations are triggered under Washington’s campaign finance laws concerning ballot measures.

Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), codified in RCW 42.30, mandates that all meetings of a quorum of the members of all legislative bodies of all state and local governmental entities must be open to the public and all actions taken must occur in such open meetings. The Act defines “meeting” broadly to include any prearranged gathering of a quorum of the members of a legislative body where business is transacted or discussed. There are limited exceptions, such as for certain personnel matters or executive sessions for specific legal or real estate negotiations, but these must be properly announced and conducted. A legislative body cannot conduct its official business outside of these open meetings, even if it’s informally discussing matters. The intent is to ensure transparency and public access to governmental decision-making processes. Therefore, a private communication between a majority of the members of a city council regarding a proposed zoning change, even if no formal vote is taken, would violate the spirit and letter of the OPMA if it constitutes a “meeting” as defined by the Act, as it circumvents the public’s right to observe and participate in such discussions.

The scenario presented involves a local initiative in Washington State seeking to amend a municipal ordinance that regulates the placement of political signage within public rights-of-way. The initiative proponents gathered signatures, and the city clerk verified them as sufficient to place the measure on the ballot. The core legal question is whether the city’s ordinance, as it pertains to political signage in public rights-of-way, is preempted by state law, specifically Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) or any other relevant election statutes. The Public Records Act (RCW Chapter 42.56) primarily governs access to government records and transparency, not the regulation of political speech or signage. Election laws, such as those found in Title 29A RCW, govern campaign finance, ballot measures, and election procedures. While there are state-level regulations regarding campaign signs, particularly concerning their placement on state highways or in relation to electioneering distances, local ordinances must not conflict with or be preempted by state law. However, the initiative itself is a mechanism for local voter participation, not a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance itself in a court of law. The question is about the *process* of the initiative and the *effect* of the proposed amendment on the existing ordinance. If the ordinance were found to be preempted by state law, the initiative’s attempt to amend it would be moot concerning the preempted aspects. However, the initiative process itself is a valid form of direct democracy under Washington law, allowing citizens to propose and vote on ordinances. The question asks about the *legal status* of the initiative *after* signature verification, not about the ultimate validity of the ordinance it seeks to amend. Once signatures are verified as sufficient, the initiative is legally recognized as having met the threshold for ballot consideration. The city clerk’s role is ministerial in verifying the signatures against voter registration records. The initiative is then certified for inclusion on the ballot, and its potential impact or validity would be determined by the voters or, if challenged, by the courts after the election. Therefore, the initiative, having met the signature requirements, is legally positioned for voter consideration.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, outlines the legislative power of the state, which is vested in a legislature consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. This section also establishes the initiative and referendum processes as powers reserved to the people. An initiative is a process by which citizens can propose a new law or a constitutional amendment. For a statutory initiative to qualify for the ballot, proponents must gather signatures from registered voters. The number of signatures required is a percentage of the total votes cast for the office of governor at the preceding general election. As per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.040, for a statutory initiative to be placed on the ballot, the number of signatures must equal at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election. If the last preceding gubernatorial election was in 2020, and the total votes cast for governor were 3,500,000, then the required signatures would be 8% of 3,500,000. Calculation: \(0.08 \times 3,500,000 = 280,000\). Therefore, 280,000 valid signatures are required. The initiative process in Washington is a critical mechanism for direct democracy, allowing citizens to bypass the legislature and directly propose and vote on laws. This contrasts with the referendum, which allows voters to approve or reject laws already passed by the legislature. Understanding the signature thresholds is fundamental to comprehending the practical application of the initiative power in Washington State.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, outlines the legislative power and the initiative and referendum processes. Initiatives allow citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments, which are then submitted to the voters. Referendums allow voters to approve or reject laws passed by the legislature. For an initiative to qualify for the ballot in Washington, it must be signed by a number of voters equal to at least 8% of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for governor at the preceding general election. This percentage is a crucial threshold set by law to ensure broad public support before a measure is placed before the electorate. The calculation for this threshold is based on the total votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election preceding the filing of the initiative. For example, if the total votes cast for all candidates for governor in the preceding general election was 2,500,000, then the required number of signatures would be 8% of 2,500,000, which is \(0.08 \times 2,500,000 = 200,000\). This calculated number represents the minimum valid signatures needed to place the initiative on the ballot for voter consideration. This requirement ensures that initiatives represent a significant segment of the electorate, aligning with the principles of direct democracy enshrined in Washington’s law of democracy.

The question revolves around the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s (PDC) regulations concerning the disclosure of political advertising. Specifically, it tests the understanding of when a disclaimer is required for electronic political advertising that advocates for or against a candidate or ballot proposition. Washington’s election law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 42.17A.320, mandates that any person who sponsors political advertising on electronic media must include a disclaimer identifying the sponsor. This requirement applies to a broad range of electronic communications, including websites, social media posts, and email campaigns, when they are made for the purpose of influencing an election. The threshold for disclosure is not based on a specific monetary expenditure but rather on the intent and nature of the communication. If a communication advocates for or against a candidate or ballot measure, and is disseminated electronically, a disclaimer is generally required. The scenario presented involves a blog post that criticizes a mayoral candidate’s stance on a local development project, clearly falling under the definition of political advertising intended to influence an election outcome. Therefore, a disclaimer identifying the sponsor is necessary under Washington law. The other options are incorrect because they introduce conditions not stipulated by the law for this type of communication: a specific dollar amount of expenditure (which is relevant for some other disclosure requirements but not the basic disclaimer for electronic ads), a requirement for the ad to be broadcast on television or radio (ignoring electronic media), or a stipulation that the communication must be a paid advertisement, which is too narrow as the law covers sponsored content that functions as political advertising regardless of direct payment for placement if it’s disseminated to influence an election.

The scenario describes a situation involving a local initiative petition in Washington State. The core legal principle being tested is the process for verifying signatures on initiative and referendum petitions, specifically concerning the role of the county auditor and the standards for determining the validity of signatures. Washington State law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 42.17A, governs the process for initiative and referendum petitions. When a petition is submitted, the Secretary of State forwards it to the appropriate county auditors for signature verification. Each county auditor is responsible for examining the signatures within their county. The law requires that signatures must be “of voters qualified to sign” and that the auditor must determine if the required number of valid signatures has been submitted. Crucially, the law does not mandate a specific percentage of signatures to be verified, nor does it require a manual comparison of every single signature against voter registration records if the auditor can reasonably ascertain validity through other means, such as checking against the voter’s registration status and address. The process is designed to be efficient while maintaining integrity. A random sampling or a review of specific data points from the voter registration database is often employed. The key is that the auditor must be able to certify that the signatures are from registered voters in the correct jurisdiction. The scenario highlights a potential challenge where the county auditor is using a method that may not be the most rigorous but is still within the bounds of what is legally permissible for determining a sufficient number of valid signatures. The question focuses on the legal standard for signature verification, not the precise number of signatures needed or the auditor’s internal procedures beyond legal requirements.

The scenario describes a situation involving the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and a political committee’s reporting obligations. The key legal principle at play is the reporting threshold for campaign finance activities. Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17A) mandates that political committees report contributions and expenditures. Specifically, RCW 42.17A.235 outlines the reporting requirements, including the frequency and content of reports. For a committee that has received or expects to receive contributions or make expenditures exceeding \$5,000 in a calendar year, regular reporting is required. The question focuses on the timing of the initial report for a newly formed committee. A committee that begins its activities in April and anticipates exceeding the \$5,000 threshold within the calendar year must file its first report by the deadline that follows the activity triggering the reporting requirement. The reporting period typically ends on the Friday before the report is due, and the report itself is due on the last business day of the month following the reporting period. Given the committee began in April and anticipates exceeding the threshold, the first report would likely cover activity up to the end of May and would be due by the last business day of June. However, the question asks about the initial report *after* the committee begins operations and anticipates exceeding the threshold. The PDC’s rules often require an initial report within a certain timeframe of formation or when the \$5,000 threshold is met or expected to be met. Considering the committee begins in April and anticipates exceeding the threshold, the initial report would be due by the last business day of the month following the month in which they first exceeded or anticipated exceeding the threshold. If they anticipate exceeding it in April, the report would be due by the last business day of May. If the anticipation is for the entire year, and they start in April, the first report would cover activity up to the end of April and be due by the last business day of May. The critical element is the anticipation of exceeding the threshold. Once this anticipation is established, reporting obligations commence. The PDC’s administrative rules, specifically WAC 390-16-012, detail the filing schedule. For a committee that expects to receive or spend more than \$5,000 in a calendar year, the initial report is due by the last business day of the month following the month in which the committee is formed or the threshold is met or expected to be met. Therefore, if the committee is formed in April and anticipates exceeding the threshold in April, the report is due by the last business day of May.

The scenario describes a situation where a local initiative in Washington State seeks to amend a city ordinance regarding campaign finance disclosure for local elections. The initiative proposes requiring detailed reporting of all contributions exceeding $50, regardless of whether the contributor is an individual or an organization, and mandates that these reports be filed electronically with the City Clerk within 48 hours of receipt. Washington State’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) oversees campaign finance regulations, and while state law (RCW 42.17A) sets broad standards, local jurisdictions can enact stricter disclosure requirements, provided they do not conflict with state preemption or constitutional principles. The key legal question is whether this proposed local initiative, by imposing a lower reporting threshold and a shorter filing deadline than typically found in state law for similar levels of election, would be considered an unlawful expansion of local authority or a permissible local enhancement of disclosure. Washington law generally allows for local ordinances to provide greater public disclosure than state law, as long as they serve a legitimate local purpose and do not create an undue burden or conflict with state mandates. The proposed initiative’s focus on a specific local election and its aim to enhance transparency in that context align with the principles of local control over municipal affairs, as long as it is narrowly tailored. The initiative’s reporting threshold of $50 and the 48-hour filing deadline are significantly more stringent than many state-level requirements, but local governments in Washington have the authority to enact such measures to ensure greater transparency in their own elections, provided they are properly enacted through the initiative process and do not preemptively conflict with broader state regulations or constitutional rights of free speech and association, which are often balanced against disclosure requirements. Therefore, such an initiative, if passed and properly enacted according to local charter and state initiative procedures, would likely be permissible as a local enhancement of disclosure.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the legislative authority of the state, which is vested in the Legislature. However, it also reserves to the people the powers of the initiative and referendum. The initiative process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments, while the referendum allows citizens to approve or reject laws passed by the Legislature. For a statutory initiative to be placed on the ballot, it must be signed by a number of voters equal to at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the last preceding regular election. For a constitutional amendment initiative, the signature requirement is ten percent. These signature thresholds are calculated based on the total votes cast for the office of governor, not the total registered voters or actual votes cast in a specific election for a different office. Therefore, to determine the correct number of signatures for a statutory initiative, one must find the total votes cast for governor in the most recent election. If the total votes cast for governor in the last preceding regular election were 3,500,000, then the signature requirement for a statutory initiative would be 8% of that number. Calculation: \(3,500,000 \times 0.08 = 280,000\). This calculation demonstrates the direct application of the statutory initiative signature requirement. The explanation focuses on the constitutional basis and the specific percentage applied to the relevant election’s vote total, differentiating it from other potential calculations or requirements.

The scenario describes a local initiative petition process in Washington State. The relevant statute governing initiative petitions is found in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.051, which outlines the requirements for the number of signatures needed for a statewide initiative to qualify for the ballot. For an initiative proposing a law, the number of signatures required is 8% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Governor at the preceding general election. In this case, the preceding general election was in 2022, and the total votes cast for Governor were 3,128,500. To calculate the required number of signatures, we apply the 8% threshold: Required Signatures = 8% of 3,128,500 Required Signatures = \(0.08 \times 3,128,500\) Required Signatures = \(250,280\) Therefore, the initiative must obtain at least 250,280 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The explanation focuses on the statutory requirement for statewide initiatives, the specific percentage mandated by law, and the calculation based on the provided election data. Understanding the base number of votes and the percentage threshold is crucial for determining ballot access for citizen-sponsored legislation in Washington. This process is a cornerstone of direct democracy, allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws, and the signature requirement serves as a measure of public support and the initiative’s viability.

The scenario involves a proposed initiative in Washington State that aims to modify campaign finance regulations. The initiative proposes a new system for public financing of elections, requiring candidates to meet certain thresholds of small-dollar contributions to qualify for matching funds. A key aspect of the initiative is its provision for a citizen review panel to assess the effectiveness of the public financing system and recommend adjustments. This panel is to be comprised of individuals with diverse backgrounds, including former election officials, academics specializing in political science, and representatives from non-profit civic organizations. The law specifies that the panel’s recommendations are advisory in nature, meaning they do not have the force of law but are intended to inform legislative action or future ballot measures. The question tests the understanding of how such advisory bodies function within the broader framework of Washington’s initiative and referendum process and the legislative oversight of election laws. The Washington State Constitution and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) govern initiatives and the legislative process. Advisory recommendations from citizen panels are a common mechanism for providing expert input and public feedback, influencing policy development without directly enacting law. The effectiveness of such panels lies in their ability to build consensus and provide well-reasoned arguments that persuade lawmakers or the electorate.

The scenario involves a county auditor in Washington State reviewing a ballot initiative petition. The initiative proposes a new tax structure. Under Washington’s initiative process, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.72.080, a petition for a measure proposing a new tax requires a greater number of valid signatures than a petition for a measure that does not propose a new tax. The number of signatures required is determined by a percentage of the total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election. For initiatives proposing a new tax, the signature requirement is 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election. If the initiative did not propose a new tax, the requirement would be 4%. The question asks for the correct signature threshold for this specific initiative. Since the initiative proposes a new tax, the 8% threshold applies. For example, if the total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election in Washington was 3,000,000, the required signatures would be \(0.08 \times 3,000,000 = 240,000\). The explanation focuses on identifying the correct statutory percentage based on the nature of the proposed measure.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, outlines the legislative powers reserved to the people through the initiative and referendum processes. An initiative to the legislature allows citizens to propose a law or a constitutional amendment, which is then submitted to the legislature for consideration. If the legislature approves the initiative, it becomes law. If the legislature rejects it, amends it significantly, or takes no action within a specified timeframe, the initiative is then placed on the ballot for a statewide vote. The process requires a certain number of signatures from registered voters, which is determined by a percentage of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. For a statutory initiative, this percentage is 4% of the votes cast for governor at the last election. For a constitutional amendment initiative, it is 6%. The number of signatures required is then calculated based on the total votes cast for governor in the most recent election. If, for example, the total votes cast for governor in the last election were 2,500,000, a statutory initiative would require \(0.04 \times 2,500,000 = 100,000\) valid signatures. A constitutional amendment initiative would require \(0.06 \times 2,500,000 = 150,000\) valid signatures. The question asks for the minimum number of signatures needed for a statutory initiative to the legislature if the total votes cast for governor in the most recent election were 2,850,000. Applying the 4% threshold for statutory initiatives, the calculation is \(0.04 \times 2,850,000 = 114,000\). This demonstrates the application of the constitutional requirement for citizen-initiated legislation in Washington State. The correct response is the result of this calculation.

The scenario involves a local initiative in Washington State that proposes to amend a city ordinance concerning campaign finance disclosure for local elections. Under Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17A), specific thresholds trigger disclosure requirements for political committees and individuals making contributions or expenditures. For instance, RCW 42.17A.205 outlines the reporting requirements for political committees. When a ballot proposition is involved, such as an initiative to amend a city ordinance, the rules governing its qualification and the disclosure of those involved in advocating for or against it are crucial. The question tests the understanding of which entity is primarily responsible for certifying that an initiative measure has met the signature requirements for placement on the ballot in Washington State. This certification process is a fundamental step in the initiative system. The Secretary of State’s office, as mandated by law, reviews the submitted signatures to verify their validity and count against the required threshold for the specific jurisdiction (city, county, or state). Once certified, the measure can proceed to the ballot. Other entities, like the Attorney General, may review the legal sufficiency of the ballot title and summary, and county auditors are involved in the signature gathering and initial verification process within their respective counties, but the final certification for ballot placement rests with the Secretary of State.

The scenario describes a situation involving the potential for campaign finance violations under Washington State law, specifically concerning contributions made by a foreign national to a local ballot measure campaign. Washington’s campaign finance laws, governed primarily by the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 42.17A, strictly prohibit contributions from foreign nationals to influence elections or ballot measures. A foreign national is defined as an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States, or a corporation or other entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. The question asks about the most appropriate action for the campaign treasurer. Based on RCW 42.17A.485, any contribution received from a prohibited source, such as a foreign national, must be returned to the source or, if the source cannot be identified, donated to the state treasury. Therefore, the treasurer must immediately return the contribution to the foreign national. This action aligns with the legal requirement to rectify such prohibited contributions.

The Washington State Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, grants the people the power of the initiative and referendum. The initiative process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments. For a statutory initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must be signed by a number of registered voters equal to at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. For a constitutional amendment initiative, the signature requirement is ten percent. The question asks about a statutory initiative. The last general election prior to the hypothetical scenario was in 2022, where the total votes cast for governor were 2,785,945. Therefore, the required number of signatures for a statutory initiative is 8% of this total. Calculation: \(2,785,945 \text{ votes} \times 0.08 = 222,875.6\) Since the number of signatures must be a whole number, and the law requires “at least” this percentage, the minimum number of valid signatures needed is 222,876. This number represents the threshold that must be met or exceeded for the initiative to be placed on the ballot. The explanation details the constitutional basis for citizen initiatives in Washington State and the specific signature threshold for statutory initiatives, referencing the percentage and the calculation based on the preceding gubernatorial election’s vote count. It emphasizes that this process is a direct manifestation of popular sovereignty as enshrined in the state’s foundational legal document, Article II, Section 1. Understanding this mechanism is crucial for comprehending the direct democracy tools available to Washington citizens.

In Washington State, the initiative process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments. When an initiative is filed with the Secretary of State, it must be accompanied by a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). This statement assesses the potential financial consequences of the initiative for state and local governments. For an initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must gather a sufficient number of valid signatures. The number of signatures required for an initiative proposing a law is 8% of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. For an initiative proposing a constitutional amendment, the requirement is 10% of the total votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. These signature requirements are adjusted based on the most recent gubernatorial election results. For instance, if the total votes cast for governor in the 2020 election were 3,000,000, then an initiative proposing a law would need \(0.08 \times 3,000,000 = 240,000\) valid signatures. An initiative proposing a constitutional amendment would need \(0.10 \times 3,000,000 = 300,000\) valid signatures. The Secretary of State’s office is responsible for verifying the validity of these signatures. The fiscal impact statement, while crucial for informing voters, does not directly affect the signature counting or validation process. The process is designed to ensure that only initiatives with broad public support, evidenced by a substantial number of signatures, are presented to the electorate.

In Washington State, the process of initiative and referendum is governed by Article II, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution and related statutes, such as the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 29A.72. Initiatives allow citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments, while referendums allow citizens to approve or reject laws passed by the legislature. For an initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must be signed by a number of voters equal to at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the preceding general election. For a referendum to qualify, it requires signatures from at least four percent of the total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election. These signature thresholds are crucial for ensuring broad public support before a measure can be presented to the electorate. The verification of these signatures is conducted by the Secretary of State’s office, which checks them against voter registration records. If the required number of valid signatures is met, the measure is then placed on the ballot for voter consideration in the next general election. The calculation for the required number of signatures is based on the total votes cast for governor in the most recent general election prior to the submission of the initiative or referendum petition. For example, if the total votes cast for governor in the 2020 general election was 3,000,000, then an initiative would require \(0.08 \times 3,000,000 = 240,000\) valid signatures, and a referendum would require \(0.04 \times 3,000,000 = 120,000\) valid signatures.

The scenario involves a local initiative in Washington State that proposes to amend a county ordinance concerning land use regulations. For an initiative to qualify for the ballot in Washington, it must meet specific signature requirements as outlined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Specifically, for a county initiative, the number of valid signatures required is a percentage of the votes cast for the office of Governor in the last preceding gubernatorial election within that county. The exact percentage is 10% for initiatives proposing to repeal or amend a county ordinance. Therefore, to determine the number of signatures needed, one would take the total votes cast for Governor in the last election in that county and multiply it by 0.10. For instance, if the total votes for Governor in County X were 50,000, the required signatures would be \(50,000 \times 0.10 = 5,000\). This process ensures that a significant portion of the electorate has demonstrated support for the measure before it can be placed on the ballot, reflecting the democratic principle of direct citizen participation while maintaining a threshold for viability. The explanation focuses on the legal basis for signature requirements for local initiatives in Washington State, referencing the relevant percentage of votes cast for a specific statewide office in the preceding election as the determinant factor for qualification.