Tag Archives: Perry Dozier

E-News: What can Washington legislators do about Washington, D.C.?

Jan. 31, 2025

WSP Teamsters

Members of Teamsters 117 work hard at the Washington State Penitentiary to keep three groups of people safe: offenders, the public and the workforce. I sat down with them here at the Capitol on Wednesday and listened to their views, particularly about staffing and safety. Even though legislators face a challenging budget situation this year, I appreciate the service of these dedicated state employees and will do all I can to address their very real concerns.

Dear Neighbor,

Even though our Washington is almost as far as you can get from the “other Washington,” it hasn’t taken long for ripples caused by the change in the federal administration to reach me in the state Senate.

An example was this email from a constituent in Richland who wrote Tuesday:

What is your stance on the current administration’s policy and what do you plan to do to help protect Washington State residents from massive governmental overreach and the recent disgusting orders signed by the current president? Do you plan to be of assistance to the people of Washington and the United States of America?

Respectfully, a concerned mother, grandmother, daughter, sister and friend.

My reply to her asked for more detail, like which policy and what she meant by massive overreach, and which orders she found disgusting. It would have been interesting to know, so maybe she will respond.

But I also noted to her that unlike a governor or an attorney general, our Legislature doesn’t issue executive orders or file lawsuits, and rarely attempts to engage directly with the White House. I closed by encouraging her to reach out to our new governor and attorney general with her concerns, as they would be in a position to communicate in an executive branch-to-executive branch way.

Then there was the phone call Wednesday morning from a gentleman who was extremely interested in knowing how I would vote regarding the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to the position of secretary of Health and Human Services. I did my best to explain that the United States Senate has the duty of confirming presidential appointments like that; our Washington State Senate can only confirm appointments made by Washington’s governor.

I’m not sure I was completely successful, but either way this was not the first time someone has reached out to me about what was in fact a federal issue, because they had blurred the lines between the state and federal governments. It’s understandable, and it gives me a chance to point them in the right direction.

Are there times when we as legislators need to keep track of actions being considered or taken at the federal level? Absolutely. The four dams on the lower Snake River between Clarkston and Pasco are federal facilities, and what happens with them matters greatly to our state, especially this corner of Washington.

Of course, because the state has no real influence over the dams or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, most of the time and money spent on this study or that task force at the state level was more about appeasing special interests. I hope our new governor doesn’t politicize the dams like his predecessor did.

Another example is the Hanford Site, outside of Richland. It’s been federal since day one, back in 1942, but the people who work there and live in the area are my constituents, and I also am interested in the research and technology associated with Hanford and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Finally, as a member of the Senate budget committee I’m hearing about possible changes in Medicaid funding — also a federal thing — that could roll downhill to the states, which means a possible effect on our state budget.

If you have questions or concerns about actions being considered or taken in Washington, D.C., you can contact me, or Governor Ferguson, or Attorney General Brown — but a more direct path would be to reach out to your federal representatives.

U.S. Rep. Michael Baumgartner, 5th Congressional District
Click here to email
Spokane Office
528 E. Spokane Falls Blvd #115
Spokane, WA 99202
Phone: (509) 353-2374		 Washington DC Office
124 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC  20515
Phone: (202) 225-2006
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Click here to email
Richland Office
825 Jadwin Avenue, Suite 160K
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509) 453-7462		 Washington, D.C. Office
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2621
Toll Free: (866) 481-9186
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Click here to email
Richland Office
825 Jadwin Avenue, Suite 160K
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509) 453-7462		 Washington, DC
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3441

page Keshav Karkamkar

Thank you, Keshav Karkamkar!

My office is still accepting applications from Washington students who wish to serve a week at the Capitol as a Senate page. In the meantime, let me introduce our first page of 2025 : Keshav Karkamkar, a junior at Hanford High School in Richland. He is the 16-year-old son of Manasi Keni and Abhi Karkamar of Richland, and was with us for the second week of the session.

It was a pleasure to sponsor Keshav, and encouraging to learn that he is highly interested in politics. That’s not a requirement for serving as a page, of course, but it would have been a bonus for him — our state Capitol is a great place to learn about the political process, especially during a legislative session!

The last day to apply for the Senate Page Program for the 2025 session is March 17, 2025, or until all available openings are filled.

Information about the program and application process is available here. If you know teens who would be interested, have them contact my office or Myra Hernandez, Civic Education Director (Myra.Hernandez@leg.wa.gov​ or SenatePageProgram@leg.wa.gov).

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

My priorities (shared by Senate Republicans) are:

Here’s how to:

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

E-Newsletter: The ‘freeze’ is coming!

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from… here in the 16th District!

Let me begin with a quick piece of housekeeping. Legislators who declare their candidacy for public office (like being re-elected to the Senate) must abide by a strict set of rules when it comes to communicating using official tools.

For me, those tools include my Senate website, my legislative Facebook page, and e-newsletters. Therefore, I can’t update my website and FB page or send you another report like this until after the November election. Some refer to this as the “campaign freeze.” However, I am free to continue responding to questions and messages – so please, keep the emails, phone calls and letters coming!

The session summary from our 16th District delegation was also mailed recently; click here or on the image below to view it. Among the topics it covers are the history-making six initiatives submitted to the Legislature, and how three were passed – with the other three going to the November ballot.

The post-session report also details some of the dozen bills I sponsored that are becoming law this year, led by my SB 6328. It updates a property-tax exemption that benefits the widows and widowers of honorably discharged veterans. I wish we could have done more to control property taxes, but at least we kept the majority from clearing the way for the largest property-tax increase in state history.

Also, thanks again to the many who took time in early April to attend our 16th District town halls in Prosser, Pasco and Walla Walla. I always appreciate the questions and conversations!

Stunning loss of Washington farms
confirms need for ‘Cultivate Washington’  

I knew the number of farms in our state has been dwindling, in part because of onerous state regulations. But I didn’t realize it was to the extent described by another farmer recently in The Seattle Times.

A guest column from Pam Lewison, who farms in the Moses Lake area and directs the Center for Agriculture at the Washington Policy Center, cites some painful statistics from the U.S. Census of Agriculture.

Between 2017 and 2022, our state lost 3,717 farms and ranches. That’s 14 farms per week, on average. And more than the 3,456 farms lost during the decade ending in 2017.

Click here for the full column, which does a thorough if sobering job of ticking through many of the factors that are behind this stunning drop in the number of farms, and explaining why it should alarm people across our state, not just those in the agriculture sector.

After more than 40 years of farming, I can relate all too well to these concerns. As a senator and former county commissioner, I have an even broader sense of why they exist and how government is involved.

If you did not receive my special post-session report on agriculture, it’s posted online here. Also, several of the reasons line up with the priorities in the Cultivate Washington agenda I and other Senate Republicans unveiled late last year. Click here for it.

Sen. Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, has been a tremendous ally on issues facing our part of the state.

16th District among many caught up in ‘gerrymandering’

During the 2022 session I was among the majority of legislators who supported the resolution adopting new boundaries for our state’s 49 legislative districts.

In Washington, the boundaries are set by an independent, bipartisan commission, using the latest U.S. Census data. Because our state’s population expanded and shifted in the previous 10 years, the commission had to create and approve a map that would make legislative districts as even as possible in population – approximately 157,000 residents per district.

The map we endorsed had been created and approved by the commission in November 2021. One of the notable aspects was that it made the neighboring 15th Legislative District, which spans most of the Yakima Valley, a “majority-minority” district.

The commission agreed that the voting-age population in the 15th District, based on the census numbers, would be 51.5% Hispanic; the overall population was 73% Hispanic.

Amazingly, the district wasn’t Hispanic enough for the out-of-state interests that filed suit soon after we had approved the new map(s). In the 2022 election, the district’s voters overwhelmingly chose a Hispanic woman as their new senator – a first in the 15th District. Even so, the plaintiffs chose to continue their legal challenges. I figure it’s because that senator, Nikki Torres of Pasco, is a Republican.

Under Washington law, responsibility for modifying a legislative-district map clearly belongs to the state redistricting commission. We could and should have called a very brief, “special” legislative session back in the fall to reconvene the commission. The governor and the Legislature’s top Democrats all refused.

I also supported an effort early in this year’s legislative session to reconvene the redistricting commission. Our majority colleagues said no, knowing it would allow a federal judge to take over and redraw the map without any legislative oversight or assurance of bipartisanship.

As a result, many legislative districts have new boundaries – from a map drawn by the plaintiffs, which doesn’t seem impartial.

Senator Torres, who has been a terrific colleague these past two years, now finds herself a resident of our 16th District. She can still serve the rest of her term without having to relocate, but I know there were other ways to redraw the 15th District without having such a ripple effect. The senators for the 12th and 14th districts also got “redistricted out.” They too are Republicans.

The term “gerrymandering” goes back more than 200 years. It refers to giving one party an unfair advantage. In 1983, when Washington voters handed the responsibility for redistricting to an independent, bipartisan commission – at the Legislature’s request – it seemed like our state would be safe from gerrymandering.

Apparently not, because a bunch of partisans figured out how to do an end-run on the commission. I realize the 15th District has been represented in the state Senate by Republicans since 1943, but come on. Let’s play fair. This is wrong.

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Dozier helps pass historic initiative to reinforce parental rights concerning school information

OLYMPIA… Three years after he first introduced legislation to create a “parents’ bill of rights,” 16th District Sen. Perry Dozier today saw his goal achieved with the Legislature’s passage of Initiative 2081.

“This is a momentous day for the parents across our state who want to engage with their child’s school but have found it challenging to do so, especially when it comes to having certain questions or concerns addressed,” said Dozier, R-Waitsburg, who serves on the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee.

“Parents shouldn’t have to wade through state laws and rules to figure out what their rights are when it comes to knowing what is being taught at their child’s school, or how the school responds to the health questions of students. In this day and age they should be able to pull up a website and quickly get answers.

“This initiative covers even more ground than the policy I’ve proposed each of the past few years, and I’m happy to see it become law.”

The parental-rights measure was passed by a 49-0 vote in the state Senate and a 82-15 vote in the House of Representatives. It is one of three initiatives to the Legislature, submitted by Washington voters earlier this year, to win legislative approval today. Lawmakers have never enacted three initiatives in any year since Washington’s initiative process was created in 1912.

“Our public schools should want to be as transparent as possible. They should want to make it simple and convenient for parents to get the information they seek, because that can make the difference between a parent who is engaged versus a parent who gets frustrated and starts looking for alternatives for educating their children,” said Dozier.

“More than 454,000 Washington voters signed the petitions for I-2081, which was second only to the initiative to repeal the hidden gas tax represented by the cap-and-trade law,” he added. “I have to believe many of them are parents who look back on how the pandemic affected students and see I-2081 as a step toward being more involved going forward.”

Because the initiatives do not go to the governor for consideration like other legislation, the laws created by I-2081, I-2111 and I-2113 will take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends this Thursday.

The income-tax ban was passed 38-11 in the Senate and 76-21 in the House. The pursuit reform received a 36-13 vote in the Senate and passed 77-20 in the House.

Leaders of the Democrat majorities in the two legislative chambers say three more initiatives submitted to the Legislature will not receive any attention this session, despite each receiving well over 400,000 voter signatures: I-2117, to repeal the cap-and-trade law (officially, the “Climate Commitment Act”); I-2109, to repeal the state tax on income from capital gains; and I-2124, to let workers opt out of what is now a mandatory payroll tax for the state-run long-term care act.

If lawmakers adjourn on schedule Thursday without enacting those measures, as expected, Washington’s constitution requires them to automatically go on the November statewide general-election ballot.

E-News: Hearings scheduled on initiatives next week; this week went to budgets

with Sen. L. Wilson

With Sen. Lynda Wilson of Vancouver in the Senate chamber. The supplemental operating budget passed today by the state Senate reflects some of my input, which I worked through her as Senate Republican budget leader and her counterparts on the majority side. Keep reading for details.

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol! I have important news about voter initiatives that couldn’t wait… for reasons that will become apparent.

This past weekend I reported to you how our Democrat colleagues had finally committed to holding public hearings for three of the six initiatives submitted to us by the people. Now we have a schedule for those hearings, and opportunities for you to participate.

The three measures to be considered are Initiative 2111 (total ban on income taxes in our state), Initiative 2113 (restore the ability of police to conduct vehicle pursuits) and Initiative 2081 (parental rights regarding their children’s education).

I-2081 builds on the parents’ bill of rights legislation I have sponsored since 2021. It will come before the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee, on which I serve, and I am working with others on the committee to make sure the hearing covers the most important aspects during the one hour (!) allotted.

Unfortunately, the majority is still refusing to hold hearings on the initiatives to repeal laws that are about taking money and giving it to the state: I-2117, I-2109 and I-2124. Washington’s constitution does not say to give precedence to half the initiatives and ignore the rest. The people are the sponsors of these initiatives, and they deserve to be heard on all six!

To support the initiatives next week sign in as PRO, using the links below. Be sure the button next to the initiative number under “select agenda item” is checked, to display your options — which include submitting written testimony or testifying “live” in person or remotely:

For more detail about the six initiatives click here. I want to hear from you about all of them. Please take a few minutes to click on the link or the QR code and complete my survey!
survey QR code

Take my online survey about the six voter initiatives submitted to the Legislature this session!

Scan the QR code or click here to begin

initiative box

Local projects supported in budgets adopted, proposed this week

State government runs on a two-year budget cycle, with new budgets developed and adopted in odd-numbered years. This is why we alternate between 105-day sessions and 60-day sessions; in this year’s “short” session we are reopening the budgets approved in 2023 to make adjustments that are intended to carry through the remainder of the budget cycle (until June 2025). Those changes are captured in “supplemental” budgets.

This week the Senate adopted supplemental versions of the 2023-25 operating budget and capital budget. A high-level summary of the supplemental operating budget is here; before the final vote I worked with the budget leaders from both parties to make two adjustments of interest to our area.

One adds a $501,000 appropriation to help with the cleanup of gasoline contamination in downtown Walla Walla; the second creates a fourth tier in an agricultural-fuel reimbursement I discovered in the budget after it became public Monday. For those who purchase 10,000 gallons or more of farm diesel annually, the payment would go to $4,500, up from $3,400 (which remains the third-tier payment).

While I appreciate the majority’s support for my amendment, this approach still does not — as I stated publicly this week — truly reimburse those stuck paying a surcharge on farm fuel due to the state’s cap-and-trade law. The best solution is to do away with cap-and-trade completely, which is the purpose of Initiative 2117. It will save money for anyone who buys any kind of motor fuel or uses natural gas for any purpose, residential or commercial.

The capital budget adopted by the Senate appropriates another $6.6 million toward projects in our 16th Legislative District. I’m happy that includes another $1.5 million for the Columbia Valley Center for Recovery (it’s still listed as Three Rivers Behavioral Health Center, as the name changed after the underlying budget was adopted in 2023). Even better, in its way, is the $300,000 for a trio of local projects: resurfacing and revitalizing the public swimming pool in Prescott, funding a childcare center for Waitsburg and support for the Prosser Clubhouse, run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin counties.

From here, the leaders for the operating and capital budgets from the Senate and House will get together and hammer out the differences between their respective spending plans, then come back with a compromise for another vote.

I also have an important appropriation in the Senate’s proposed supplemental transportation budget, for the State Route 224/Red Mountain project in the Benton County part of our district. Click here for my news release on it, from earlier this week. That budget will come up for a vote from the full Senate this next week, then it will go through the same compromise process.

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Republican senators question timing, purpose of proposed payments to farm-fuel users

Sen. Perry Dozier

OLYMPIA… The two state senators who farm in eastern Washington say they’re not sure what to make of a proposed offer of money for farm-fuel users who got stuck paying a surcharge on their fuel purchases because of the state’s cap-and-trade law.

The payments, which could amount to no more than pennies per gallon for many farming operations, are offered in the state Senate’s supplemental operating-budget proposal.

Sen. Mark Schoesler

“I don’t know anyone in the agricultural sector who would view this as a solution to the fuel-surcharge issue we’ve been fighting more than a year, since cap-and-trade was fully implemented,” said Sen. Perry Dozier, R-Waitsburg.

“These payments wouldn’t come close to making up for what farm-fuel users have been forced to pay because the executive branch of state government failed to uphold the promise made in the cap-and-trade law – that farm diesel and fuel used by the maritime industry would be exempt from the surcharge this new program would create,” said Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville.

Schoesler serves on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which held a public hearing yesterday on the proposed supplemental operating budget. The budget appropriation doesn’t refer to the payments as rebates or reimbursements, and routes them through the state Department of Licensing – not the Department of Ecology, which is responsible for implementing the cap-and-trade law.

“Are these payments a way for the state to ease its guilty conscience for failing so badly on upholding the promised fuel-surcharge exemption? Does the timing have anything to do with the certification of the initiative to repeal the cap-and-trade law? Are the supporters of cap-and-trade just looking to throw a bone to agriculture? No one who buys farm fuel by the truckload would come up with this,” said Dozier.

Dozier and Schoesler are the sponsors of Senate Bill 5728, introduced in 2023. It would basically force Ecology to develop a process for implementing the promised exemptions. The bill has been ignored, and a task force set up by Ecology during the summer failed to completely resolve industry concerns.

Given that background, the senators were surprised to see a $30 million appropriation, buried on page 564 of the new Senate budget proposal, “solely for payments to support farm fuel users and transporters who have purchased fuel for agricultural purposes that is exempt from the requirements of the Climate Commitment Act… but paid a surcharge or an additional fee.”

The payments would be made by the Department of Licensing to “noncorporate farms” first – a term not defined in the budget bill – depending on annual farm-fuel consumption. The first tier, those using less than 1,000 gallons annually, would receive $600; the second tier, between 1,000 and 4,000 gallons consumed, would get $2,300; and those using 4,000 gallons or more a year would receive $3,400.

“It’s a lame proposal because most farms of any size operate as a corporation,” said Schoesler. “On top of that these tiers make no sense, except they’re consistent with the whole premise of cap-and-trade – or ‘cap-and-tax,’ as it should really be called. This law is about punishing people who use fossil fuel. It’s as though they think there are electric combines down at the farm-equipment dealer.”

Dozier agrees the tiered approach is not realistic. “One tractor pulling a heavy load can go through 25 gallons of fuel an hour. At that rate just one week of 10-hour workdays will blow past the 1,000-gallon threshold.

“It’s not difficult for a farm to go through 30,000 gallons of diesel in a year. Under this proposal, that’s 11 cents per gallon. Adding more tiers based on 10,000-gallon increments would be a slight improvement, but if the intent is to honestly compensate users who have been paying the surcharge, the payments to them should really be gallon for gallon, with no tiers at all.”

The Senate budget proposal also includes $35 million to provide low-income households with energy utility bill assistance. Like the payments proposed for farm-fuel users, those subsidies would be funded with proceeds from the cap-and-trade law, which has enabled state government to rake in about $1.8 billion in the past year from auctioning “carbon allowances.”

“In December the governor proposed using cap-and-trade money to subsidize low-income households. It wasn’t a surprise to also see it in the Senate budget. But this money to pay farm-fuel users feels like something thrown in at the last minute by people who don’t understand agriculture,” said Schoesler.

“This is a pretty responsible budget proposal overall, and I appreciate that Republicans had a fair amount of input about the priorities,” said Dozier, “but it needs some work to be a budget that truly respects the needs of agriculture.”

Senate transportation-budget proposal includes more SR 224/Red Mountain funding

OLYMPIA… The supplemental transportation budget made public by the state Senate this morning includes $2.2 million requested by Sen. Perry Dozier to keep improvements to State Route 224 in the Red Mountain vicinity from stalling again.

Dozier, R-Waitsburg, said a $5 million appropriation he helped secure in the 2023-25 transportation budget was thought to be what the project needed. Then the Washington State Department of Transportation threw up a barrier, saying the work – which comprises vehicle and bicycle lanes, roundabouts and pedestrian areas – couldn’t proceed without more money.

“This project was supposed to be shovel-ready months ago, after that $5 million was approved. I’m not sure why things unraveled the way they did, but instead of arguing with WSDOT it made more sense to see if I could get a second appropriation in this same budget cycle,” said Dozier.

The Senate transportation proposal (SB 5947) must be passed by the Senate Transportation Committee, which will have a public hearing on the bill tomorrow and may vote on the plan Friday. The fact that the same appropriation is in the corresponding House proposal bodes well for the money carrying through to the final version of the supplemental transportation budget, Dozier said. It must be negotiated between the two chambers and adopted before legislators adjourn for the year March 7.

E-News: Property-tax threat goes away, but threat to rural health care remains

 

I was happy to welcome members of Teamsters 117, which represents Department of Corrections employees, when they came over from Walla Walla to visit the Capitol earlier this month. In response to the question “Who has been assaulted on the job?” probably half raised their hands. Feedback like this often inspires legislation, and I will be following up with them on this and other concerns in the spring.

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol!

This week the state Senate wrapped up its work on bills introduced by senators, with the exception of updates to the three state budgets. The “cutoff” for approving Senate bills arrived at the end of Tuesday; we then went back to meeting as committees to take up the House legislation passed over to us (and the House committees are doing the same with Senate legislation).

The six voter initiatives submitted to the Legislature this session continue to get attention one way or the other. I and other Republicans have called for public hearings on these measures, in line with a requirement in our state constitution; the majority Democrats finally made commitments about three this past week. I’d like to know what you think about how the Legislature should handle these, and invite you to take a quick online survey. Details are below.

Dozier bills move to House for consideration

Early this week the state Senate unanimously passed my Senate Bill 6238, to update a property-tax exemption that benefits the widows and widowers of honorably discharged veterans. It was created in 2005 but has not kept pace with similar exemptions since then. SB 6238 was referred to the House Finance Committee for consideration; being a fiscal committee, it has until Feb. 26 to move my bill forward.

Also getting unanimous approval was SB 5801, a bill that has to do with the banking industry. I introduced it at the request of our state’s Uniform Law Commission, and the bill is a good example of just how narrowly focused and non-partisan a piece of legislation can be. That’s probably why it is moving so quickly through the House, with  a public hearing Wednesday and a “yes” vote from the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business yesterday morning, well ahead of next Wednesday’s deadline for policy committees to act on legislation.

Property-tax proposal pulled due to public pressure

Sometimes it’s more important to keep a bad piece of legislation from becoming law, which is why I’m happy about the demise of SB 5770. It would have opened the door to tripling the growth of local property taxes…without voter approval!

Since 2001, and the passage of Initiative 747, the annual growth rate of property taxes has been limited to 1% annually, unless voters agree to a larger increase. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, as that cap was confirmed in 2007 by a Democratic-controlled Legislature at the request of a Democratic governor.

Still, a group of Democrats from Puget Sound pushed SB 5770 through the Senate Ways and Means Committee and onto the Senate voting calendar. That’s when the public rose up in protest, and we held a news conference that resulted in a lot of media attention. The prime sponsor of the bill then announced he would stop trying to get it through the Senate, which was the right decision – but the excuses he gave in this news report are concerning.

One is that “supporters need to work on better explaining the needs of cities and counties…and helping the public better understand the mechanics of property taxes.” Having been a county commissioner for eight years, I have a good sense of what local governments need, versus what they might want. Also, to be clear, the 1% cap has never prevented local governments from asking voters for more than 1%. If a majority of voters in King County (where the prime sponsor is from) approve a 10% increase in their property taxes, for whatever purpose, they are free to tax themselves more.

I wonder if the supporters of this property-tax proposal understand the “mechanics” families must go through to contend with all the costs being layered upon them in recent years, through a variety of government policy decisions. A great example is the cap-and-trade law that was passed in 2021 and took full effect in 2023, which has raised the cost of just about everything, starting with gas at the pump and natural-gas heat (which the majority is now trying to ban through HB 1589, which was passed by a Senate committee yesterday). Don’t get me started on what cap-and-trade means for our agricultural sector, and how promises made in the cap-and-trade law aren’t being honored by Governor Inslee’s administration.

The real purpose of SB 5770 is to allow a higher annual increase in the tax rate without going to the voters. That sounds like the opposite of “democracy” to me. Besides, the housing shortage in our region and our state as a whole is challenging enough without allowing tax hikes that would hit not just property owners but also renters.

I was pleased that none of the counties I serve in the 16th District came to me asking for this bill. They realize they can ask their voters to go above the 1% limit, and I appreciate that our area commissioners are living within the means provided by the taxpayers, even if it makes budgeting more challenging.

I’m glad the proposal has been dropped for this year, but unfortunately, we should expect to see it again.

 

Proposed hospital-merger restrictions could be very harmful to rural Washington

With the majority’s proposed property-tax increase off the table, Senate Bill 5241 becomes the worst bill of the session so far – at least from the Senate side.

This bill has the meaningless title of “Concerning material changes to the operations and governance structure of participants in the health care marketplace.” That offers no clue about the true effect SB 5241 would have on our state. An accurate title would be something like “Allows a partisan state official to decide whether a hospital closes.” The trouble is, being that clear would alarm people across our state and keep this misguided proposal from flying under the radar.

The prime sponsor claims this is about preserving access to affordable health care, but as they say, the devil is in the details – she also acknowledges the intent is to ensure hospital mergers and acquisitions specifically don’t restrict access to “end-of-life, reproductive and gender-affirming care.”

Let’s suppose a small rural hospital is at risk of closing, and its only chance to continue operating is to be acquired by a larger hospital with a religious affiliation. SB 5241 would give the attorney general’s office the power to determine – over a 10-year oversight period – if such a transaction would affect access to end-of-life (assisted suicide), reproductive (including abortion) and gender-affirming care, which is defined in detail in the bill. That’s a very long time for a rural community to have a sword hanging over the head of its nearest health-care facility, should a merger be the only way to keep it open.

The version of the bill brought to the floor of the Senate was a 27-page rewrite that was made available for review only that day, while we were in the middle of debating and voting on a long list of other bills. I stood up during the 3-hour debate on SB 5241 and explained, using a recent trip to the Dayton General Hospital emergency department as an example, the danger this approach presents to health-care access in our area. It’s as though the supporters of this bill would rather see hospitals close than to have them remain open under an agreement that somehow involves religious affiliations.

SB 5241 is part of an agenda, which is why Republican amendments meant to protect consumers, involve the secretary of health, etc., were rejected, and why the bill is whizzing through the House – a vote in the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee is scheduled Tuesday. Doesn’t it seem odd that a “health care marketplace” bill isn’t coming before a health-care committee in either chamber?

It was my privilege to sponsor Olivia Smasne as a Senate page this past week. She’s a 9th-grader at Prosser High and is the daughter of Brent and Jamie Smasne of Prosser. I know Olivia appreciated being able to see a side of the Senate and the lawmaking process that isn’t shown on the TVW network, and she was here at one of the most important times of any session. Thanks, Olivia!

Democrats agree to committee hearings on only three initiatives, despite constitutional requirement

Article II, Section I of Washington’s constitution is clear about how legislators should treat initiatives submitted to them: “Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session.”

That part about “take precedence” means we are supposed to consider the initiatives ahead of every other bill except spending bills (like the budgets).  Yet here we are, two-thirds of the way through the session, and only now is the majority side responding.

Yesterday afternoon the top Democrats in the Senate and House announced there will be joint Senate/House hearings week after next on three initiatives: I-2113 (police pursuits), I-2111 (income-tax ban) and I-2081 (which would create a parental bill of rights concerning , similar to legislation I’ve introduced each of the past three years).

They confirmed there will not be hearings on I-2117, which would repeal the cap-and-trade law that is driving up everyone’s gasoline and natural-gas costs; I-2109, which would repeal the tax on income from capital gains, and I-2124, which would end the mandatory payroll tax tied to the state-run long-term care program.

The chair of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee announced this past week that she intends to hold a work session on I-2124, but that is not the same as a hearing because the public is not allowed to testify.

I have no question the Democrats’ decision to have any hearings is due to the pressure Republicans have been applying all session long, but still, the bottom line is that they’ll let the people be heard on only half of the six initiatives.

I want to hear from you about all of them, however. Please take a few minutes to click on the link or the QR code and complete my survey!

Take my online survey about the six voter initiatives
submitted to the Legislature this session!

Scan the QR code or click here to begin

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

E-News — People to Legislature: Consider six policy changes…this session

 

Chief Rocky Eastman headed the delegation from Walla Walla Fire District #4 that came by this past week. If you expect to be anywhere near the state Capitol between now and the March 7 end of this year’s session, I hope you will contact my office and arrange to stop in!

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol!

Every session, one of our opening-day tasks is to agree on deadlines for taking action on legislation. Considering nearly 540 bills have been introduced in the Senate alone for 2024, not counting legislation that is still eligible from this past year, this “cutoff” calendar does much to help committee and caucus leaders decide which measures continue on the path to becoming law, and which are put aside.

In my experience, the bills that survive our deadlines tend to fall into three categories: simple bills that make reasonable changes; bills that have potential but need more of the refining that is done through the amendment process; and bills that the majority side wants, which happen to also be majority-sponsored measures much more often than not.

We are nearly at the first cutoff for this year’s legislative session, which is for Senate policy committees to decide the fate of Senate bills referred to them. This is formally known as “executive action,” which I’ll explain below, as it has come up in recent questions and comments from constituents.

Next week brings the cutoff for the two Senate fiscal committees. One is the Ways and Means committee, which handles legislation affecting the operating and capital budgets. Transportation is the second. SB 6238, my bipartisan bill to close a loophole in the state’s list of property-tax exemptions, received a public hearing in Ways and Means this past week; now we just need a vote (although it’s possible this bill could end up being in the package of bills labeled “necessary to implement the budget,” which exempts it from the usual deadlines). My measure specifically concerns a property-tax exemption that was created in 2005 to benefit the widows and widowers of honorably discharged veterans, yet has not kept pace with similar exemptions since then.

A web page showing the legislation I am sponsoring is here. You may choose between bills I’m prime-sponsoring and those for which I am a co-sponsor. For more on my session priorities and legislation, and a shout-out to some former legislators from our 16th Legislative District, read my recent interview in Shift.

Farmworkers rally against ag-overtime law;
labor committee schedules another hearing on reform bill

This past week farmworkers descended on the Capitol to protest the ag-overtime law adopted in 2021 (see photo), basically saying it’s not working for them the way the supporters claimed.

If you want to get legislators’ attention, there’s nothing like holding a rally on the front steps of the Legislative Building and also going inside the Capitol Rotunda. I have no doubt that these very visible demonstrations had an effect on the majority side of the aisle, because the bipartisan ag-overtime reform bill introduced last year (SB 5476) suddenly was scheduled for a public hearing tomorrow before the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.

This is a nice turn of events, on the surface, but I have to point out how the same committee held a public hearing on SB 5476 this past February, during the 2023 session, then let the bill die. I’m not seeing a committee vote scheduled for the bill this time around, so all sides in our agricultural sector will have to keep their expectations real. That said, if SB 5476 is allowed to die again, the majority has some explaining to do – especially to the farmworker community. I don’t think it could make its concerns any clearer.

For some of the news coverage of the rally, click here and here.

 

Voters to Legislature: Consider
these six policy changes… this session

Under our state constitution, the state’s legislative authority is “vested” in the Senate and House of Representatives. However, Article II, Section 1 continues with this: “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature.”

This power is exercised through the initiative – either an initiative to the people, which if certified goes straight to the ballot, or an initiative to the Legislature. If certified, an initiative to the Legislature does just what the name implies. It comes to us as legislation which may be enacted, just like any other bill. If an initiative is not enacted, it must go to the ballot alone or to the ballot accompanied by an alternative from legislators, in which case the voters get to choose one.

Our constitution also makes it clear that the Legislature isn’t supposed to just sit on these measures and do nothing: Article II, Section 1 includes a sentence about how initiatives are to “take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills.”

A record six initiatives to the Legislature – twice the previous high, set all the way back in 1972 – have been certified to us by the secretary of state.

  • I-2109 would repeal the state tax on income from capital gains. When this came before the Senate for a vote during the 2021 session, I and other Republicans proposed putting the measure before the voters later that year. The majority side said no. We now know from public-records disclosures that supporters of the tax knew its constitutionality would be challenged and saw that lawsuit as a way for the state Supreme Court to open the door to a full-blown income tax, like Oregon has. That strategy failed but for some reason the justices did accept the nonsensical argument that this is not an income tax but rather an “excise” tax. As our Senate Republican budget leader put it in this statement, I-2109’s certification puts it on a path to a public vote… one way or another.
  • I-2111 would ban any local or state government in our state from imposing an income tax (Washington voters have in one form or another rejected 11 other attempts to impose an income tax, but I know legislators who have yet to get the message). Like I-2109, this measure has been referred to our Ways and Means Committee. The Senate and House Republican leaders issued this statement about their support for the initiative.
  • I-2124 targets the mandatory payroll tax that supports the state-run WA Cares long-term care program. It would not end the program but instead allow workers to opt out, which isn’t possible now. In the Senate, I-2124 has been referred to the Labor and Commerce committee.
  • I-2113 would end another mistake made by the majority in 2021 – the criminal-friendly restrictions put on vehicular pursuits by law enforcement. I realize pursuits can be risky, but I also know our officers are trained to minimize that risk. It’s no wonder auto thefts and other property crimes have jumped in our state since criminals learned they would no longer be pursued. I-2117 has been referred to our Law and Justice committee.
  • I-2117 would basically repeal the cap-and-trade law that has made gas in Washington far more expensive than in Oregon and Idaho. In doing so it would also settle the fuel-surcharge issue hurting our agricultural and maritime sectors, which neither the majority nor the Inslee administration has done. If cap-and-trade (officially, the “Climate Commitment Act”) goes away, then there’s no more promise of fairness for the state Department of Ecology to break. This has been referred to the Environment, Energy and Technology committee.
  • I-2081 would essentially create a bill of rights for parents who want more information about what their children are doing at school. It’s similar to but more detailed than the parental-rights proposal I’ve offered every session since becoming senator. As this initiative has been referred to the Senate committee on education, on which I serve, I have asked the chair to have a public hearing on the measure. Click here for the details.

As these initiatives will help lower the cost of living, make Washington safer and make our school system better, I intend to support them. That will either happen in the Senate or at the November general election.

What voting ‘without recommendation’ really means

A lot of rules govern our handling of legislation, and some of the words that go along with the process aren’t as clear as they could be. I was reminded of that recently in relation to a bill that has roots in our part of the state.

The Senate State Government and Elections Committee is one of my committees. On day two of this session the chair had us take public testimony on SB 5824, which has to do with changing the chapter of state law about public library districts.

SB 5824 stems from the effort this past year to dissolve the Columbia County Rural Library District, which became a ballot measure that ended up being blocked by a court from the November ballot. The bill was introduced by the committee chair, a senator from Olympia, at the request of the secretary of state, who is Washington’s chief elections officer.

It’s important to note the committee chair sets the agenda for her or his committee, meaning which bills receive hearings, which are brought up for votes, and when that happens. The chair scheduled SB 5824 for “executive action” three days after the public hearing.

When a committee takes executive action on a bill, members may choose between a “do pass” or “do not pass” recommendation or a third option, which is to vote “without recommendation” – essentially, a neutral vote that doesn’t hinder the bill’s progress.

After the hearing on SB 5824, I had questions about the scope of the change it would make, plus this: Legislation passed in 1947 made it so a rural county library district could be established or dissolved through a petition signed by 10% of the voters within that district. In the form in which it came before our committee, SB 5824 would have replaced 10% with 35% but only for the dissolution of such a district. Does it seem consistent or fair to you that dissolving a taxing district should be more than three times as difficult than creating one?

If a law needs to be clarified or updated, I am willing to listen. In this case I just wasn’t going to recommend for or against the bill’s passage by the full Senate without knowing more.

Because I could not get answers ahead of the committee vote, I chose to refer the bill “without recommendation.” While that was reported accurately here in the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, some people inaccurately concluded I had opposed the bill. Once I explained how we vote in committee, and why I voted as I did on SB 5824, they understood.

When SB 5824 came before the full Senate this past week, the Republican leader on the state-government committee offered an amendment that would set the threshold for dissolving a library district at 25% — still far above what the law now requires but a compromise from 35%. The amendment was accepted, and the bill passed unanimously.

If you have a question about any vote I cast, by all means call or write. I want my constituents to have the facts.

The first student I sponsored as a Senate page this session was Alex Plourd, an 8th-grader at Highlands Middle School in Kennewick. Alex is the daughter of Brenden and Shauna Plourd of Kennewick. She did a wonderful job this past week, and was here when the Senate passed some important legislation!

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

 

 

Dozier asks for committee hearing on parental-rights initiative

OLYMPIA… Under Washington’s constitution, initiatives to the Legislature are to have precedence over all other measures before lawmakers except spending bills. Sen. Perry Dozier today added an exclamation mark to that requirement by formally asking the chair of the Senate’s K-12 education committee to hold a hearing on Initiative 2081 “as soon as possible.”

I-2081, certified to the Legislature this past week by the secretary of state, would establish a wide-ranging parents’ bill of rights. Dozier, R-Waitsburg, is prime sponsor of Senate Bill 5024, a parental-rights bill that received a hearing before the same committee in 2023. After I-2081 was submitted for certification with more than 454,000 voter signatures, prior to the start of the 2024 legislative session, he decided against advocating for a committee vote on his measure this year.

“As you well know, I am a strong advocate for parental rights in our state,” he wrote to the committee chair, Sen. Lisa Wellman, D-Mercer Island. “After three years of running my parental rights bill, I chose to step back and allow the citizens of our state speak to this issue.

“With over 400,000 signatures signed onto Initiative 2081, I believe they have done just that.”

It is standard for lawmakers to formally request hearings on bills they introduce. Dozier, who serves on the education committee, said he took it upon himself to request a hearing on I-2081 because the measure is more detailed than his legislation, and a public hearing would allow for an informative and objective comparison.

“The constitutional language that puts priority on initiatives should be enough to get I-2081 a hearing,” he explained. “Also, this initiative also stands out from the others before us in that it would not repeal an unpopular tax or an unworkable public-safety policy. Instead, it is broadly about a more open approach to operating our public schools, and helping parents gain access to important information that is either inconvenient or seems impossible to get.

“I appreciated the hearing on my bill a year ago, in the spirit of connecting parents and schools in a more productive way, and to me I-2081 is worth some of the committee’s time as well. Hopefully the chair will grant my request.”

 

From Article II, Section I of the Washington Constitution: “Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session.”