Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Because I believe accurate information is necessary for good decision making, I must push back on a statement made by Chris McGraw on KCAW’s call in-forum for Ballot Initiative 2. From the transcript:

Chris McGraw: “The concept of having what I would call a fiscal note on a citizens initiative … isn’t something that is new. Numerous states require this on state initiatives, and it’s for the purpose of voters understanding what the impact is that they’re voting on.”

Katherine Rose: “So there’s precedent for this in other places?”

Chris McGraw: “There is precedent for this in other places.”

Mr. McGraw is correct that there are 18 states that require a fiscal impact statement, but for statewide initiatives only, – NOT at the municipal level.

But more importantly, completely left out of the narrative, is that in all 18 states the impact statement is prepared by an entity of the government AFTER receiving the initiative petition. The analysis that is provided BY THE GOVERNMENT is then included as part of the initiative petition. NOWHERE is a petitioner required to hire a professional financial analyst and pay for a very extensive impact study at any point in the process! (Google it – Sitka is the only example that comes up). For further information see: https://ballotpedia.org/Fiscal_impact_statement

So, the accurate answer to Ms. Rose’s question on precedent is: “NO. There is no precedent for Proposition 2.” My question for study would be: What is the impact on Democracy when onerous financial costs are levied in order for citizens to be engaged in the shaping of their government? Please vote NO on Prop 2.

Donna Donohoe