Tag Archives: Walla Walla

Majority is determined to raise your taxes, one way or another

Dear Neighbor,

This year’s regular legislative session will end no later than midnight this coming Sunday. Our state constitution says so, because the regular sessions in odd-numbered years are limited to 105 days — and Sunday is day 105.

If the Legislature still has work to do, it can go into what’s officially called an extraordinary session. We tend to call it a “special” session or simply, overtime.

A special session is looking like a pretty strong possibility this year, because the majority Democrats and the governor agree on raising taxes but not on which taxes to increase, and by how much. That’s up in the air even more because of what majority Democrats did on the day before Easter, when we were in session nearly eight hours.

Here are more details, taken from the news release I issued Saturday evening (here’s the relevant part of it):

Dozier opposes first wave of Democrat tax hikes

OLYMPIA, April 19… Today Sen. Perry Dozier and his fellow Republican senators opposed the first round of major tax increases brought to the full Senate: a sales-tax increase that will hit lower- and middle-income families harder, a tax increase that will drive capital out of Washington, and a collection of unrelated tax increases that includes a new tax on self-storage rentals.

Dozier, R-Waitsburg, offered this statement after the Senate’s majority Democrats pushed the three tax bills through during their third consecutive Saturday voting session of 2025:

“It’s a farce for the Democrats to keep talking about making the wealthy pay more when they clearly are willing to tax everyday Washingtonians. Today alone the Senate majority supported tax increases that will apply to childcare, nursing homes, synthetic tobacco products, self-storage companies, doorbell cameras, and much, much more.

“The tax bills that came out of the Senate today would cost more than $10 billion all by themselves, and we’re still expecting other taxes to be coming our way from the House. I heard Governor Ferguson on Thursday when he said $12 billion in new taxes is unsustainable, so the majority is close to that already – but maybe the Democrats just don’t care what he thinks.

“The best answer to the governor’s concerns about tax increases, and being ready for anything coming out of Washington, D.C., is the $ave Washington budget proposed by Senate Republicans. It doesn’t require a single tax increase and won’t cut anyone off of services. We made a motion to bring our budget bill to the floor today, but the Democrats said no.”

The governor hasn’t come out and said he will call legislators into a special session if there are too many new taxes in the budget they ultimately adopt — “they” being Democrat legislators, who are the only ones pushing new taxes.

Also, when Governor Ferguson said $12 billion in new taxes is “too risky” (in addition to “unsustainable”), he may have been referring to state-level taxes, not a combination of state and local. But if more services become taxable, the local sales taxes also apply, and the property-tax hikes being proposed certainly would mean local increases. That’s why I say the tax bills approved by the Senate on Saturday have put the count at $10-plus billion, with more tax increases in the pipeline.

Maybe the governor and the legislative Democrats will come to terms on taxes before midnight on day 105. I suspect they realize how it will appear to the public if we are pushed into a special session simply because of Democrat infighting about raising taxes.

Either way, multibillion-dollar tax increases seem inevitable this session, even though Senate Republicans have proposed a budget that does everything our state needs, using the revenue available and without a single cut to human services. It’s as though the majority is pursuing tax increases simply because it doesn’t think the people will push back — and that’s a poor way to govern.

Is the threat of a property-tax increase over? Not so fast

As of this past week the Democrats had not one but three bills to raise your property taxes. Each would affect the Washington law prohibiting the state and local governments from increasing your property-tax rate by more than 1% annually unless they get permission through a public vote.

Senate Bill 5798 would eliminate the 1% cap and tie tax-rate growth to inflation plus population growth; House Bill 2049 and Senate Bill 5812, introduced with identical wording, would triple the 1% limit. Each has received tremendous public opposition.

On Saturday there was new concern that Democrats would make SB 5798 / HB 2049 even worse, through a rewrite that would allow school districts to pursue higher levy amounts. This would take Washington’s K-12 funding system backwards, to the days when property-rich school districts had a huge money-raising advantage over property-poor districts.

Now the concern has shifted yet again. The House majority approved HB 2049 late last night, after taking out the part about the growth of property-tax rates — and as we anticipated, inserting a new part about larger school tax levies.

If this means the Democrats have completely abandoned their efforts to lift or eliminate the 1% cap on tax-rate growth, great. That is a victory by itself, for Republicans and especially the people who have applied so much pressure by stating their opposition to the bill.

However, enabling school districts to go for larger tax levies is still opening the door to higher property taxes, and sets the stage for two things to happen.

One is a return to the time when school districts were either “haves” or “have-nots” depending on property values. Republicans worked hard to level the playing field between districts, so property-rich districts didn’t have such an advantage. We don’t believe a child’s educational opportunities should depend on a ZIP code, and it’s shocking that Democrats would try to undermine that.

The other is that districts could once again become more reliant on local-levy dollars than on state-level funding, which sets the stage for another lawsuit like the one that brought about the landmark McCleary lawsuit more than a dozen years ago.

So don’t be fooled — in a way, HB 2049 is almost worse now, because of how it could raise the cost of living for homeowners and renters while also putting rural families and rural students at a disadvantage. We will fight this!

Another attack on agriculture

It isn’t just the tax increases being discussed in Olympia that worry me. The effort to impose rent control is likely to shrink the supply of rental housing, meaning higher prices, and the attempt to make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits will increase the cost of doing business.

Neither of these is a tax increase, literally, but if they become law, each will make living and working in our state less affordable.

Another example which hasn’t gotten much attention is the bill to begin phasing out certain refrigerants in our state — and by going after refrigerants, House Bill 1462 also goes after food storage.

This bill came before the full Senate this past week, having been passed in the House already on a party-line vote. I used it as an example of how policies popular with certain interest groups can have a much darker side, and what this bill in particular means for growers across our state who rely on cold storage.

Click here or on the image above to view my remarks on HB 1462. Because it has been passed by both chambers but in different forms, I can’t tell you how it will end up exactly — but we already know it will be unfriendly to agriculture.

Regulatory changes add to the cost of doing business in our state, and while many of those costs end up being passed along to consumers, not every business sector can do so — agriculture being a prime example, because those of us who grow commodities are “price takers,” not “price makers.”

As I said on the floor of the Senate chamber, this bill is another of the many attacks I’ve seen on agriculture during what is now my fifth year as a senator. We should be protecting agriculture instead, knowing all the jobs it provides and the important role it has in our state economy. Let’s not kill the family farm!

***

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,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

The attack on parental rights continues in Olympia

Dear Neighbor,

Late in a legislative session, the priorities of the majority come into focus. Judging from the two major policy bills that were passed Thursday and Friday by the Senate’s majority Democrats, the priorities can be summed up in a word: control.

Let’s go in reverse order. On Friday afternoon, the big discussion was about parental control — specifically, a second effort by Democrats to undermine the parents’ bill of rights established in 2024’s Initiative 2081.

I have a special affinity for the parents’ bill of rights because during each of my first three years as a senator, I introduced legislation to create something very similar. It wasn’t necessary to do so in 2024 because by then, I-2081 was being certified and submitted to the Legislature.

Democrats joined us to unanimously support I-2081 in the Senate more than a year ago, yet there they were on Feb. 5 approving a first piece of anti-parent legislation, Senate Bill 5181. It’s now one step from a vote by the full House.

The bill that came before the Senate on Friday was House Bill 1296. It’s similar to SB 5181 but worse in its own way. A committee amendment would basically allow the state to withhold 20% of a school district’s funding for “willful noncompliance” with state education laws.

To me this creates a serious problem because districts have to follow federal education laws (like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) as well as state laws. Should those laws conflict, school-board members could easily find themselves having to choose whether the district should comply with federal law or state law, knowing the state can inflict a financial penalty if its law isn’t followed.

It seems completely backwards, to put it diplomatically, for Democrats to threaten the withholding of school funding. After all, the state’s paramount duty is to provide for K-12 education, and our districts need more support than they’re getting for things like special education.

Because the Senate made changes to this anti-parent bill, it needs to go back to the House for what’s called “concurrence.” If the House concurs, or agrees, with the Senate’s changes, the bill will head to the governor’s desk. If not, HB 1296 could come back to the Senate.

There’s no telling how this story will play out over the next couple of weeks. But it should already be clear to the parents of our state where the majority’s priorities lie — and it’s not with parents.

The property-tax increases being pushed by Democrats (Senate Bill 5798 and House Bill 2049) are among the worst bills of the session. I’m particularly concerned about how higher property taxes could hurt senior-age Washingtonians — click here for my take on that. To keep these proposals from flying below the radar, we invited members of the public to join us for a news conference focused on property taxes (several of them are in front of me in the photo above). I encourage you to watch our news conference by clicking this link. 

Rent control won’t increase supply of rental housing

On Thursday afternoon, the major debate in the Senate chamber had to do with rent control — or to put it more accurately, government-imposed price controls on rental housing.

I know the people of our legislative district are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, because it was the number-one topic at our mid-March town-hall meeting. Some of those participating expressed support for rent control, and the appeal is understandable — especially for someone who is now renting.

But as a policymaker, I also think about the renters of tomorrow, and those who choose to become housing providers. And even if my degree was in something other than economics, I’d still know from my farming experience what happens when demand for a commodity exceeds the supply of that commodity. Prices go up!

The best way to bring housing prices down, especially over the long term, also applies to rental housing: increase the supply.

For reasons that aren’t completely clear, our Democratic colleagues seem to think price controls need to be part of the answer. A month ago House Democrats approved the latest example of rent-control legislation — House Bill 1217. That’s the bill which came before the Senate on Thursday.

As passed by the House majority, the bill would put a 7% cap on annual rent increases. When it came off the Senate floor, the cap had been raised to 10%, plus the consumer price index, through an amendment.

I don’t know anyone who would get into or stay in the housing business with a 7% limit on annual rent increases. That could easily cause a housing provider to lose money, when the idea of such an investment is to do better than break even.

Going to the higher 10% limit makes this bad bill “less bad,” to use an Olympia expression. So does the passage of another amendment that exempts family- or individually-owned single-family homes from the law. Still, only Democrats voted for the bill, because price controls go completely against the free-market approach preferred by Republicans.

If Democrats also go ahead with property-tax hikes, it will only add to the squeeze on housing providers. They’ll have more reason to get out of the market, reducing the supply of rentals.

As with the anti-parent bill passed on Friday, HB 1217 must go back to the House for concurrence with the changes made in the Senate. We may not know the fate of this bill until the very last day of the session, which is April 27.

***

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

 

A budget… already? With no new taxes?

Dear Neighbor,

If you’ve been hearing state government is in financial trouble and big tax increases are the only answer, I have good news. Even if you haven’t heard a word about Olympia’s budget situation… the news is still good.

This week the two senators who serve as the Senate Republican operating-budget team did something few thought was possible this session: They proposed a new state budget that balances without a single tax increase, and without slashing the services people care about most.

Normally we don’t see budget proposals until late March. By putting their plan on the table this week, Sen. Chris Gildon of Puyallup and Sen. Nikki Torres of Pasco served notice to the majority that the “tax increases are inevitable” message people have been hearing for months just isn’t true.

The same is true for the scare tactics we saw from House Democrats earlier this month, when they launched a campaign claiming, in so many words, that people will die unless taxes are increased.

Because the Senate Republican approach would effectively erase the budget shortfall while saving the people of our state from the harm of either huge tax increases or devastating spending cuts, this is being called the “$ave Washington” budget.

As Senator Torres put it, this new proposal has “completely transformed” the budget conversation here in at the Capitol, because anyone who takes the time to look will see it is a serious and viable proposal.

I invite you to visit the $ave Washington webpage and examine the budget proposal. You’ll find the slide presentation from the March 11 news conference, a balance sheet, and much more — which collectively show this is an honest, reasonable and sustainable plan. It’s just what our state needs at a time like this.

Capital-budget proposal nears completion

My first session as one of the writers of the Senate capital budget is going as expected. It reminds me of some of the work I did as a two-term Walla Walla County commissioner, but on a much larger scale both financially and geographically.

After studying the requests for funding in detail, it’s definitely a challenge to decide which will make it into this year’s Senate budget and which have to wait at least until 2026 for further consideration. But it’s like any other budget — there’s only so much money, and you have to prioritize.

The capital budget has a reputation for being the most bipartisan of the three budgets we must adopt this year (operating and transportation are the others), and I can now vouch for that.

Sen. Mark Schoesler of Ritzville is the leader on the Senate Republican side, with me as assistant, and we’ve developed a constructive working relationship with our Democratic counterparts: Sen. Yasmin Trudeau of Tacoma, and Sen. Mike Chapman of Port Angeles.

As I explained above, we normally don’t see any of the budget proposals until late March. While no date has been set to roll out this year’s Senate capital budget, it is near completion, so we are definitely on track.

Sen. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick, is prime sponsor of a bill having to do with cost-of-living allowances for members of two state-run pension plans. I co-sponsored SB 5113 because the policy is sensible — but we weren’t allowed to vote on it. Another bill was brought before the Senate instead, which I couldn’t support.

The backstory about vote on COLA legislation

You know the expression about how there’s more than one way to skin a cat… well, there also can be more than one way to solve a public-policy issue.

When two or more solutions are proposed as legislation, but legislators are allowed to vote on just one of those bills, what happens? Here’s an example.

Senate Bill 5085 and SB 5113 both have to do with providing ongoing COLAs (cost-of-living allowances) for members of two state-run pension plans that had closed to new enrollments nearly 50 years ago.

The chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee is the lone sponsor of SB 5085. She allowed her bill to advance from her committee while “killing” SB 5113, a bill I sponsored along with several Democrats and Republicans. That also explains why only her bill came before the full Senate for a vote earlier this month.

Sometimes there isn’t enough difference between competing bills to matter — but not in this case. Here’s what I would say to someone who wonders about my vote: While I support the COLA part of SB 5085, the underlying policy in the bill I sponsored is better, and had been endorsed by the state Select Committee on Pension Policy.

SB 5085 still passed in the Senate, but it was on a party-line vote, which means I was far from alone in withholding my support.

What the heck is an ‘NTIB’?

I’ve mentioned before how the work we do in Olympia is guided by deadlines for taking action on legislation. The first deadline is for policy committees, the next is for budget committees, and the third is the deadline — or “cutoff” — to vote legislation forward from the house or chamber where it originated.

Wednesday was the deadline for the Senate to act on Senate bills, and the House to act on House bills. On Thursday we moved into the next phase, during which Senate policy committees consider bills passed by the House, and vice versa. The deadline for that is April 2.

As we know, there are often exceptions to a rule — or a deadline, in this case. When a bill is determined to be part of a budget package, usually because the policy in the bill is funded in the budget, it is labeled “Necessary To Implement the Budget.” As an NTIB bill, it is exempt from the usual deadlines.

House Bill 1334, which would triple the allowable annual growth rate of property taxes, is still before the House Finance Committee. It’s remained there since a public hearing on Feb. 11. But no one should assume it’s “dead” for the session.

The policy in the bill affects the state property tax (for schools) as well as local property taxes. I suspect that is more than enough to qualify it for an NTIB label that would keep the tax increase in play. I can’t be sure because the House Democrats get to make that decision — let’s wait for the House operating-budget proposal to come out, and see if it’s in the budget package.

***

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,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Count ’em: 107 bills in two days!

Ways 2-25

I don’t believe unemployment benefits are meant to be paid to people who walk off the job and go on strike, yet on Friday the majority Democrats on the Senate budget committee endorsed a bill to allow that. To view the public hearing that led to the vote on SB 5041, click here.

Dear Neighbor,

When I was appointed to the Senate Ways and Means Committee ahead of this legislative session, I figured it would keep me busier than any of my other committees. This week, “busier” was an understatement. Wow!

To make a long story short, bills that have a cost associated with them need to go before a budget committee after coming out of a Senate policy committee – and except for bills related to transportation, they all come to our Ways and Means committee.

As a result, Monday’s committee agenda had public hearings for 27 bills, Tuesday brought hearings on 21 more. There were 31 hearings on the Wednesday agenda, and on Thursday… we began voting. That list had 58 bills, and yesterday’s voting list had 49.

This is on top of the hours spent in the Senate chamber this week, debating and voting on bills that had cleared the necessary committee hurdles.

Does our state need all 107 of the bills we saw Thursday and Friday to become law? Absolutely not. A good example is SB 5041, which would provide taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits for striking workers.

If you get laid off, you can apply for unemployment benefits – but not if you quit. The same logic applies to going out on strike. It’s still a case of voluntary separation.

Striking workers would have less financial incentive to stay at or return to the bargaining table if they’re allowed to collect unemployment benefits. That would give them a distinct advantage over the employer, which explains why SB 5041 is a high priority for our state’s labor organizations. But it hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars.

I’m not on the Senate labor committee, so if it wasn’t for my seat on Ways and Means, I wouldn’t be able to ask questions that help expose the flaws in this bill, as I did during the public hearing on it Wednesday.

Here’s a sampling of some other bills that came before the Ways and Means committee this week:

  • SJR 8200: Amends the state constitution to allow increases in property taxes through school bonds by removing the 60% vote needed and lowering it to a simple majority (94% “con” testimony in committee)
  • SB 5626: Provides unemployment benefits for undocumented workers in a way that easily allows fraud
  • SB 5179: Allows the state school superintendent to go after schools/officials if they don’t comply with legislative mandates
  • SB 5266: For those sentenced as juveniles, eliminates the 20-year waiting period to petition for release – even if convicted of violent crimes
  • SB 5382: The “initiative killer” bill, which includes threatening signature gatherers for initiatives with fines and jail time if certain requirements aren’t met, and preventing people who don’t have addresses or who use post-office boxes from signing initiative petitions

With the close of business Friday, the Senate’s two budget committees (Transportation is the other one) joined the policy committees that are already on break.

Starting Monday the activity in the Senate will move full-time to the Senate chamber through March 12. During that time you’ll find Republican and Democratic senators doing one of two things: meeting in their respective caucuses to discuss bills, and amendments to those bills, or out on the “floor” debating and voting on those bills and amendments.

From the Mailbag: Keeping tax dollars local?

Earlier in this session I shared part of an email that came from a constituent in Richland, who was expressing her concerns about actions being taken at the federal level. Today let me share an excerpt from an email sent by a Walla Walla constituent, which is about the relationship between the state and its many municipalities.

“Your newsletter spends much of its digital ink attacking Democrats, as is usual for Republicans who seem to have few ideas other than ‘lower taxes.’ How about favoring some kind of bill allowing local areas to keep more of their tax money rather than sending it to the state? I’ve long advocated that each county in the state be forced to pay its own way.

“That would mean, of course, that Walla Walla County, where I live, could take in no more in state spending than it collects in taxes. This could be regulated over a three year period to account for large projects. Allowing locals to collect and spend their own money is an intensely Republican idea, i.e. devolving government to its most local level.”

He’s right, Republicans do prefer local control because it means decisions are made closer to the people they affect. That’s why we typically oppose legislation that dictates school-related policies from Olympia in a way that overrides the authority of local school boards.

But to get to this constituent’s point: In 2022 I co-sponsored a bill to assist with the hiring of law-enforcement officers. It would have basically allowed cities and counties to collect and spend 1/10th of 1 percent of the sales tax that would normally have gone to Olympia. The bill didn’t even make it out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Maybe my Democratic colleagues were opposed to letting the locals keep some tax dollars. Perhaps they were opposed to helping communities rebuild their law-enforcement agencies after the exodus of officers we saw in the 2020-21 timeframe. I have no way of knowing. But there’s an example of how I tried to keep more tax money at home, and it didn’t work.

By the way, the bill’s Republican sponsor reworked it so the funding source became grants from the state budget rather than tax credits. His perseverance seems to have paid off, because Governor Ferguson publicly endorsed the bill in his inaugural address. SB 5060 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee Thursday!

As for “attacking” Democrats – like a baseball umpire, I call ‘em as I see ‘em. If my experience tells me legislation introduced by a Democrat is bad policy, either for our district or state, it should be OK for me to let my constituents know.

Republicans don’t have a corner on good ideas, which is why I’ve co-sponsored a couple dozen bills this session that were filed by my Democratic colleagues. I also welcome ideas from constituents, like this one from Walla Walla. But to be clear, “lower taxes” are always a worthwhile goal, in my book.

March 17 THM notice

***

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

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

Who would oppose multifamily housing in rural areas?

Dear Neighbor,

When legislators talk about the obstacles to increasing the supply of affordable housing in our state, the list always includes — at least for Republicans — the government regulations that make property development more complicated and costly than it needs to be. But there are forces outside government that get in the way as well, and this week’s report explains how and why I recently tangled with them.

Also, there’s important information for people who have purchased ag fuel and paid the surcharge tied to the cap-and-tax law (officially, the Climate Commitment Act). I and other Republicans worked hard to set up a fund to provide rebates, and we don’t want anyone to miss out on what they’re owed!

Click here or on the image to view my report.

***

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

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

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

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

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