Albertson's Pharmacy and the $900 Million Fine

This is the news article that Blogspot is trying to suppress. The article discusses elements of fact and how government does what it does and how tat complicates things.  Lets see if Blogspot deletes it again.

~~~~~~~~

Albertson's Pharmacy is being held to account for selling pain medicine to people who had prescriptions for them. Washington State claimed Albertsons pharmacists failed to turn away prescriptions from known 'pill mill' doctors even after competing chains had blocked them.

Under ordinary circumstances, a pharmacy fills a prescription written by a licensed doctor. However, for controlled substances (especially opioids), federal law imposes an extra layer of duty.

Federal regulations (21 CFR § 1306.04) state that while the doctor has the primary responsibility for issuing a prescription for a legitimate medical purpose, the pharmacist who fills it has a corresponding responsibility.

In plain terms:

• A prescription is only valid if it is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.

• A pharmacist is not required to fill a prescription that looks doubtful, questionable, or suspicious.

• If a pharmacist knowingly fills a prescription that is not for a legitimate medical purpose, both the doctor and the pharmacist (and by extension the pharmacy) can be held liable.

This duty requires pharmacists to look for and resolve “red flags” — patterns that suggest the prescription may be illegitimate or intended for diversion (illegal resale or misuse). Examples include:

• Extremely high volumes from a single doctor

• Patients traveling long distances

• Cash payments for large quantities

• Combinations of drugs known as the “holy trinity” (opioid + benzodiazepine + muscle relaxant)

• Doctors known in the industry as “pill mills”

What the Court Found in the Albertsons Case

According to the Washington state judgment (November 2026):

• Albertsons pharmacies filled millions of opioid prescriptions that carried clear red flags without adequately investigating or documenting that they were legitimate.

• The company discouraged or restricted its own pharmacists from refusing prescriptions written by known high-volume “pill mill” doctors, even after other pharmacy chains had already stopped accepting those doctors’ prescriptions.

• Corporate policies prioritized volume/sales over stronger controls, and information about problematic prescribers was not effectively shared across stores.

The court concluded that this pattern violated both state and federal controlled-substance laws.

Common Red Flags

Category	Specific Warning Signs	Why It Raises Concern
Geographic / Travel	Patient lives far from the pharmacy or the doctor; patient drives past many closer pharmacies	Suggests “doctor shopping” or seeking out a known high-volume prescriber
Payment Method	Patient pays cash for expensive opioids even though they have insurance that covers other medications	Avoids insurance scrutiny and prescription-monitoring systems
Prescriber Patterns	Same doctor writes nearly identical high-dose opioid prescriptions for many unrelated patients	Suggests “cookie-cutter” or “pill mill” prescribing rather than individualized care
Drug Combinations	Opioid + benzodiazepine + muscle relaxant (the “holy trinity”)	High risk of overdose and frequently associated with abuse
Dose & Duration	Very high morphine-milligram-equivalent doses; long-term use of immediate-release opioids without clear justification	Inconsistent with standard medical practice for chronic pain
Early Refills / Frequency	Patient repeatedly requests refills well before the prescription should run out	Possible diversion or misuse
Multiple Prescribers / Pharmacies	Patient obtains controlled substances from several doctors or fills at multiple pharmacies	Classic doctor-shopping pattern
Specialty Mismatch	Doctor’s specialty does not match the medication (e.g., a dentist writing large quantities of long-term opioids)	Raises questions about whether the prescribing is within the usual course of practice
Patient Behavior	Patient appears impaired, aggressive about receiving the medication, or has inconsistent stories	Suggests possible misuse

How Pharmacists Are Expected to Respond

When a red flag appears, the pharmacist is expected to:

1. Recognize it.

2. Take reasonable steps to investigate (call the prescriber, check the state Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, speak with the patient, review the patient’s history, etc.).

3. Document the concern and the steps taken.

4. Decide whether the prescription is legitimate and either fill it or refuse it.

Simply filling the prescription without addressing the red flag is what creates legal risk. Documentation is critical — if there is no record that the pharmacist investigated, regulators and courts often treat it as if no investigation occurred.

Corporate / Chain-Level Red Flags

At the pharmacy-chain level (as in the Albertsons case), additional patterns can become red flags:

• Extremely high overall volume of opioids compared with similar pharmacies

• Continuing to fill prescriptions from doctors that other chains have already blocked

• Policies that discourage pharmacists from refusing suspicious prescriptions

• Failure to share information about problem prescribers across stores

In short, red flags are observable patterns that should prompt a pharmacist to pause and verify legitimacy rather than treat the prescription as routine. The presence of one or more unresolved red flags is the main basis on which pharmacies have been held liable for contributing to opioid diversion.

But if authorities knew certain 'pill mill' doctors were problem prescribers, it seems unfair that Albertsons is punished while those doctors were still allowed to practice.

That tension is real and has been widely discussed:

• Medical boards and the DEA are often slow to suspend or revoke licenses. Investigations take time, and due-process requirements protect doctors until evidence is strong enough.

• In the meantime, pharmacies are still expected to exercise independent professional judgment. Other chains did block certain doctors earlier; the court found Albertsons did not.

• Liability does not require that the doctor’s license already be revoked. It requires that the pharmacy ignore clear warning signs that were available to it at the time.

In short, the system places parallel duties on both the prescriber and the dispenser. A pharmacy cannot simply say “the doctor wrote it, so we must fill it” when the volume and patterns strongly suggest the prescriptions are not legitimate.

This is why large pharmacy chains have faced (and settled or been judged liable in) numerous opioid-related cases across the country — the legal theory is that they failed in their corresponding responsibility to act as a check against diversion. This is clear evidence that the current legal and regulatory pressure has made many pharmacies and pharmacists more reluctant to dispense opioid pain medications, even for legitimate patients. This creates a real tension between preventing diversion and ensuring access to needed care.

The Chilling Effect Is Real

Surveys and reports from recent years show:

• A large majority of chronic pain patients report difficulty filling opioid prescriptions. In one major survey, about 90% experienced delays or problems, and nearly 20% could not get their medication at all after trying multiple pharmacies.

• Common reasons given by pharmacies include “not in stock,” corporate limits on high-dose opioids, fear of DEA scrutiny, or internal policies that discourage filling certain prescriptions.

• Some pharmacies have stopped stocking certain opioids or refused new pain patients altogether to reduce their risk profile.

• Even cancer and serious-illness patients have reported being turned away or delayed.

Pharmacists themselves often feel caught in the middle. They are trained as medication experts, not investigators. In busy retail settings they may have only a minute or two per prescription, yet they face potential career-ending liability, DEA investigations, corporate discipline, or large civil judgments if they fill a prescription later judged to have had unresolved “red flags.”

The Trade-Off

Busy pharmacists are being asked to perform a quasi-policing function in addition to their clinical role. This has several downstream effects:

Potential benefits

• Reduced diversion of pills into the black market

• Lower risk of pharmacies becoming passive enablers of “pill mills”

Potential harms

• Legitimate pain patients suffer delayed or denied access

• Pharmacists practice defensive medicine (refusing borderline but valid prescriptions out of fear)

• Some patients turn to illicit sources or suffer uncontrolled pain

• Independent and smaller pharmacies may exit high-risk markets more readily than large chains

This is a classic example of a regulatory response that solved one problem while creating another. The system prioritizes preventing the worst cases of diversion, but it does so by imposing high costs and risk on the people who stand between the doctor and the patient.

Missing article

Bogspot said: "This post was deleted because it violates Blogger Community Guidelines. To republish, please update the content to adhere to guidelines."

I posted a neutral post about Albertson's Pharmacy being found culpable for the opiate addiction problem.  I pointed out the federal law that made it so they could be charged.  I reviewed how some people don't think this is fair, and how proposed changes to current law were addressing this point.  Every fact was confirmed and verified.  

Blogspot didn't like it. They should be ashamed.  Blogspot removed this current news item for no reason.

History of Washington from Exploration to Statehood to Modern Taxes.

Part 1: Exploration and Early Claims (1805–1840s)

In 1805–1806, the Lewis and Clark Expedition (Corps of Discovery) entered present-day Washington along the Snake and Columbia Rivers, reaching the Pacific and documenting the region and its Indigenous peoples. This strengthened U.S. claims. Earlier European exploration included Spanish, British, and Russian voyages along the coast. The fur trade expanded with posts by the North West Company, Hudson’s Bay Company, and American interests (e.g., John Jacob Astor’s Pacific Fur Company at Fort Astoria and Fort Okanogan around 1811). David Thompson navigated the full Columbia River.

The 1818 Treaty of Joint Occupation allowed shared U.S.-British control of the Oregon Country. The 1846 Oregon Treaty fixed the boundary at the 49th parallel, resolving the dispute peacefully. American settlement accelerated via the Oregon Trail in the 1840s.

Territorial Period (1848–1889)
Oregon Territory was organized in 1848. Settlers north of the Columbia River sought separate government due to distance from the capital. On March 2, 1853, Congress created Washington Territory (named for George Washington), initially including present-day Washington plus parts of Idaho and Montana. Olympia became the capital; Isaac Stevens served as first governor and negotiated treaties with tribes (often contentious, leading to conflicts in the 1850s).

Boundaries stabilized in 1863 when Idaho Territory was carved out. Growth accelerated with gold rushes, agriculture, logging, and especially the Northern Pacific Railroad’s arrival in the 1880s, which connected the territory to national markets and spurred population booms in Seattle, Spokane, and elsewhere. Anti-Chinese violence and labor tensions marked the era. Multiple statehood attempts failed earlier due to low population, political balances in Congress, and local reluctance over losing federal support.

Path to Statehood
The Omnibus Enabling Act (signed February 22, 1889, by President Cleveland) authorized Washington (along with the Dakotas and Montana) to draft a constitution. A convention met in Olympia from July 4 to August 22, 1889. Voters ratified the constitution on October 1, 1889 (40,152 to 11,789). On November 11, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison proclaimed Washington the 42nd state. Elisha P. Ferry became the first state governor. Women’s suffrage and prohibition were rejected at the time (suffrage later passed in 1910).

Politics from Statehood to the Present

Early decades featured Republican dominance, reflecting business, railroad, and development interests. Populist and Progressive movements arose in response to railroad monopolies and economic inequality; John Rogers (Populist/Democrat) won the governorship in 1896. The Progressive Era brought reforms such as the initiative and referendum (1912).

The Great Depression shifted politics leftward. New Deal programs and strong labor (especially in Seattle and shipyards) boosted Democrats. Post-World War II saw alternating control, with notable Republican governors like Daniel Evans (1965–1977) and John Spellman (1981–1985). Since the 1980s–1990s, Democrats have dominated statewide offices, holding a long streak of Democratic governors (Booth Gardner onward, continuing into the present with Bob Ferguson as of 2025). The state leans strongly Democratic in presidential elections since 1988 and maintains Democratic legislative majorities in recent decades, though eastern Washington remains more conservative. Key modern issues include technology/economy (Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon), environment, housing, and social policy.

Shift in Social Programs: From Private to State/Public Control

Before the 1930s, relief relied heavily on private charities, churches, mutual-aid societies, and limited local public poor relief (often sparse and stigmatized). Organizations like Seattle’s Bureau of Associated Charities/Social Welfare League coordinated private efforts.

The Great Depression overwhelmed private systems. Federal New Deal programs (FERA, CWA, WPA) and state responses (Washington Emergency Relief Administration) shifted primary responsibility to government. Federal rules increasingly required public (not private) administration of relief funds. Unemployment insurance began in Washington in the late 1930s following the Social Security Act of 1935. Workers’ compensation and other protections expanded earlier or around this period.

Postwar decades brought further public expansion: Medicaid (1965, later rebranded Apple Health with major expansion under the ACA in 2014), welfare-to-work programs (WorkFirst after 1990s federal reforms), and broader health/social services under DSHS and the Health Care Authority. Private nonprofits continued specialized roles (family counseling, etc.) but government became the dominant funder and provider of basic safety-net programs.

Recent expansions include Paid Family and Medical Leave (benefits starting 2020) and the WA Cares Fund (long-term care insurance, enacted 2019, with payroll contributions and benefits rolling out in the 2020s)—both public, mandatory social-insurance models rather than purely private or voluntary.

Part 2: Tax Rates and Structure Over Time

From territory through the early statehood period into the 1930s, property tax was the primary revenue source for state and local government.

The Great Depression and property-tax limits (including the 40-mill limit) prompted the 1935 Revenue Act, which introduced the retail sales (consumption) tax, and the business and occupation (B&O) tax (a gross-receipts tax) as major alternatives. This shifted the system toward consumption and business activity taxes. Washington has never successfully enacted a broad personal income tax (voters approved one in 1932, but the state Supreme Court struck it down in 1933 as violating uniformity rules; later attempts failed).

• Sales tax: Introduced in the mid-1930s; the state rate has been increased several times, with the last major state-rate increase in 1983. Combined state + local rates today typically range from about 7% to over 10% depending on locality (local options for transit, criminal justice, etc., have added layers).

• B&O tax: Rates have varied by classification (retailing, wholesaling, services, etc.) and been adjusted repeatedly since 1935 (examples include increases via surtaxes in the mid-20th century and more recent tiering/surcharges for higher-revenue businesses and specific sectors).

• Property tax: Remains important, especially for schools and local services, but subject to strict limits (e.g., 1% annual levy growth limit under Initiative 747 and related laws, with exceptions for new construction and voter-approved lids). Rates (expressed per $1,000 of assessed value) fluctuate with property values and budgets.

• Other taxes (real estate excise, public utility, fuel, etc.) have also evolved.

Overall, the tax burden has grown with the expansion of government services, infrastructure, education, and social programs, though Washington’s structure remains unusual among states for its heavy reliance on sales and B&O taxes rather than personal income taxes. Revenues have funded the shift from limited territorial government to a modern state with extensive public services.

This is a high-level overview drawing on historical records, timelines, and official sources. 

The 2026 “Millionaires’ Tax” (Personal Income Tax on High Earners)

In March 2026 the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed ESSB 6346 (the Millionaires’ Tax), which Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law on March 30, 2026. It is Washington’s first broad personal income tax. The tax imposes a flat 9.9% rate on an individual’s Washington taxable income above a $1 million standard deduction (indexed for inflation). For married couples or registered domestic partners the combined deduction is capped at $1 million. It applies only to the portion of income exceeding that threshold; income at or below $1 million is not taxed under this measure.

Key details:

• Takes effect for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2028 (first returns and payments due in 2029).

• Starts from federal adjusted gross income with state-specific modifications.

• Estimated to affect roughly 20,000–25,000 households (less than 0.5% of taxpayers) and raise approximately $3–3.5 billion per year once fully in effect.

• Revenue is partly earmarked for tax relief measures (expanded Working Families Tax Credit, sales-tax exemptions on items such as diapers, small-business relief) and other state priorities including education and human services.

• It coexists with the existing capital-gains excise tax (7% on long-term gains above an inflation-adjusted deduction, rising to a combined 9.9% on gains above $1 million).

As of mid-October 2026 the tax faces two immediate hurdles:

• Initiative 645, which will appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot, seeks to repeal the tax and permanently prohibit state or local taxes on individual income.

• Legal challenges are expected or underway, centered on the long-standing 1933 Washington Supreme Court precedent (Culliton v. Chase) that treated income as property and barred non-uniform (progressive) income taxes under the state constitution. Supporters hope the Court will distinguish or overturn that ruling; opponents argue the new tax is an unconstitutional income tax regardless of the “millionaires” label.

Expanding the Income Tax
Some Democratic legislators have publicly indicated interest in eventually broadening the tax. Statements have included support for lowering the threshold (for example, to $250,000, sometimes called a “quarter-millionaires tax”) at a lower rate, or making the tax more general as part of broader tax reform. Governor Ferguson has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million while he remains in office. Opponents characterize the current law as a “Trojan horse” or “camel’s nose under the tent,” arguing that once an income-tax framework is established and survives legal and ballot challenges, future legislatures will find it politically easier to expand the base or raise rates. Proponents counter that the high threshold and paired tax cuts make expansion unlikely in the near term and that the measure simply makes the overall tax code less regressive.

Economic-growth considerations
High marginal tax rates on top earners and high-growth returns can influence location, investment, and entrepreneurial decisions. Washington has historically attracted technology, aerospace, and other innovation-driven firms and high-income individuals in part because it lacked a personal income tax. Empirical studies of other states that enacted or increased high-income taxes (or “millionaire taxes”) often find measurable out-migration of high earners, reduced in-state investment, and some dampening of capital formation—effects that are larger when neighboring jurisdictions remain lower-tax. Critics of the Washington measure argue that taxing the portion of income above $1 million at nearly 10% (on top of federal rates and the existing capital-gains excise tax) reduces the after-tax return on successful innovation and high-growth ventures, potentially discouraging the very activities that have driven much of the state’s recent economic expansion. Supporters respond that the tax affects only a tiny fraction of residents, that revenue will fund public goods that support growth (education, infrastructure, workforce), and that fairness considerations outweigh mobility risks. The magnitude of any growth effects will depend on how the tax is implemented, whether it survives legal and electoral challenges, and how mobile the affected taxpayers prove to be in practice.

This tax represents a significant departure from Washington’s long-standing reliance on sales, property, and B&O taxes and continues the broader historical pattern of expanding the state’s fiscal capacity to support public services. Its ultimate durability will be determined by the November 2026 election results, subsequent court rulings, and future legislative choices.

Another Recent Tax Addition: Washington’s Capital Gains Tax

Washington enacted a tax on long-term capital gains in 2021 (ESSB 5096, codified in RCW 82.87). It took effect for sales or exchanges occurring on or after January 1, 2022. The tax is structured as an excise tax on the privilege of selling or exchanging certain capital assets, rather than a direct tax on income or property. This distinction was central to its legal survival.

Key features (as of 2026):

• Applies only to individuals (including gains flowing through from pass-through entities in which the individual has an ownership interest).

• Taxes long-term capital gains (assets held more than one year) that are allocated to Washington.

• Standard deduction: originally $250,000; adjusted annually for inflation. For 2025 the deduction is $278,000 (the 2026 figure is published by the Department of Revenue each fall and cannot decrease).

• Base rate: 7% on taxable gains above the standard deduction.

• Higher tier (added by 2025 legislation): an additional 2.9% on the portion of taxable gains exceeding $1 million, producing a combined top rate of 9.9%.

• Major exemptions: real estate (including primary residences and most other real property), certain retirement-account assets, and some other specified categories.

• Credits are available for certain B&O taxes paid on the same transaction and for taxes paid to other jurisdictions on the same gains.

Legal history
Opponents challenged the tax as an unconstitutional income tax under the 1933 Culliton v. Chase precedent, which treated income as property subject to uniformity requirements. In March 2023 the Washington Supreme Court upheld the tax 7–2 in Quinn v. State, ruling that it is a valid excise tax on the exercise of the right to sell or exchange capital assets, not a tax on the property or the gain itself. The U.S. Supreme Court declined review. Voters later rejected a 2024 initiative (I-2109) that would have repealed it.

Revenue and policy context
The tax was originally projected to raise several hundred million dollars per year, with proceeds largely directed to education-related accounts (Education Legacy Trust Account and common-school construction). Actual collections have varied with market conditions. It represented the first major step by the Legislature toward taxing investment returns after decades of reliance on sales, property, and B&O taxes, and it paved the conceptual and political ground for the broader 2026 Millionaires’ Tax (the 9.9% tax on income above $1 million scheduled to begin in 2028).

Interaction with the Millionaires’ Tax
Taxpayers subject to both measures receive a credit on the income-tax return for capital-gains tax already paid on the same gains. The capital-gains tax continues to operate independently and applies at lower thresholds than the Millionaires’ Tax.

Critics argue that layering a 7–9.9% state capital-gains tax on top of federal rates reduces after-tax returns on successful investments and can influence decisions about where high-growth entrepreneurs and investors locate or realize gains. Supporters contend it improves tax fairness by asking those who benefit from large investment profits to contribute more to public services, particularly education, without imposing a general wage tax.

The capital-gains tax remains in force as of October 2026 and forms an important recent chapter in the longer shift of Washington’s tax structure away from exclusive reliance on consumption (sales) and property taxes.

Washington State Impolite ballot recommendations -- Election 2026

Impolite takes a stand on ballot measures. Ballot measures allow voters to have a direct say in the laws and policies that affect their lives. Together we can ensure the public's voice is heard in the democratic process.

Besides, we can't let politicians and bureaucrats forget -- they work for us. 

Recommendations for the US House of Representatives

• US House - 1st Congressional District: no recommendation
• US House - 2nd Congressional District: Edwin H. Feller (R)
• US House - 3rd Congressional District :John Braun (R)
• US House - 4th Congressional District: Amanda McKinney (R)
• US House - 5th Congressional District: Michael Baumgartner (R)
• US House - 6th Congressional District: no recommendation
• US House - 7th Congressional District: Jayapal is toxic.
• US House - 8th Congressional District: Spencer Meline (R)
• US House - 9th Congressional District: Doug Basler (R)
• US House - 10th Congressional District: no recommendation

Recommendations for Washington State Supreme Court

• Scott Edwards for Position 1
• Judge David Stevens for Position 3
• Judge Dave Larson for Position 5
• Todd Bloom for Position 7

Initiative recommendations

• IL26-638 protecting girls sports.- Yes, Restrict girls sports to actual girls.   
• IP26-645 repealing the income tax - Yes. A yes vote is a vote to repeal the income tax. The Washington Secretary of State ballot description that repealing the tax is a deception. Washington state's budget for the fiscal years 2026-2027 is $157.3 billion, which includes $80.2 billion in near general fund spending. Washington state's new "Millionaires Tax" is estimated to raise up to $3 billion annually starting in 2029 - less than 4% of state spending.
• IL26 I-001 - Vote Yes.  Restores the parents bill of rights over their children in school.  Restores the original parents bill of rights as approved by the voters before the legislature limited it.

Washington State Initiative IL26-638: Protecting girls' sports

Initiative IL26-638 (also referred to as the “Protecting Girls’ Sports” or “Fairness in Girls’ Athletics” measure) is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that will appear on Washington’s November 3, 2026 general election ballot.

What the Initiative Would Do

The official ballot title and summary state:

• It concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools.
• It would prohibit students defined as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain interschool athletic activities intended for female students only.
• Students who want to participate in those female-designated activities must provide a statement from their healthcare provider verifying biological sex. Verification must rely on one or more of: reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.
• The requirements apply to both team and individual competitions.

It would apply to public K-12 schools and to private schools that participate in the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) or similar organizations. It builds on the existing requirement for a routine sports physical by adding a sex-verification component signed by a healthcare provider.

The measure was filed by Let’s Go Washington (associated with Brian Heywood). Supporters gathered far more than the required signatures (over 444,000 submitted). The Legislature took no action, so it advanced to the ballot.

Current Law and Policy in Washington

Since 2007, the WIAA has generally allowed transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. Washington has been one of the more inclusive states on this issue. The initiative would reverse that approach for girls’/women’s categories by defining eligibility according to biological sex.

Arguments in Support

Supporters argue that biological sex differences—particularly those that develop with male puberty (greater muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, strength, and speed on average)—create inherent advantages in most competitive sports. They contend that allowing males who identify as female to compete in girls’ categories undermines fairness, safety, and equal opportunity for biological females, including access to playing time, titles, records, and scholarships. They view the verification requirement as a practical enforcement mechanism that uses the already-required sports physical process. Proponents frame the measure as protecting Title IX-style opportunities for girls.

Arguments in Opposition

Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and invasive. Because verification would be required of every student seeking to compete in girls’ sports (not just those whose eligibility is challenged), they say it would subject tens of thousands of girls annually to additional medical scrutiny—potentially including examination of reproductive anatomy, genetic testing, or hormone testing. Critics raise privacy concerns, the risk of “forced outing,” cost and insurance coverage questions, and the psychological impact of such exams. They note that the number of transgender girls participating in Washington interscholastic sports is very small (commonly cited in the low double digits) and argue that a statewide ban and universal verification process is a disproportionate response. Groups such as the Washington State PTA and “No Hate in WA State” oppose it, calling it extreme compared with policies in other states.

Broader Context

This is one of several 2026 state-level ballot measures addressing transgender athletes in female sports categories. Washington’s version stands out because of the universal healthcare-provider verification requirement rather than a challenge-based or self-identification system. Nationally, debates continue over the tension between inclusion, fairness, and biological sex-based categories in sex-segregated sports. Scientific literature generally recognizes average performance differences between males and females after puberty in strength- and speed-based sports, while individual variation and the effects of hormone suppression remain points of discussion.

The measure is highly polarized. Public polling (depending on wording) has shown majority support for restricting girls’ sports to biological females in some surveys, while organized opposition focuses on the verification mechanism and privacy impacts.

Repeal Washington State's Income Tax - Vote Yes on IP26-645

The State Attorney General's Office released its "Public Investment Impact Disclosure" (PIID) that will appear on the November general election ballot under Initiative IP26-645, which REPEALS the shady Ferguson-Pedersen state income tax scheme. 

This PIID is a boldfaced Lie. The Initiative does not "reduce funding for public K-12 education, higher education and human services." The Ferguson-Pedersen state income tax scheme doesn't take full effect until 2029. When the people repeal the income tax this November, there will be no reduction in funding for "public K-12 education, higher education" or anything else. 

Ignore State Attorney General Nick Brown's desperate lies. 

IP26-645 is an initiative that aims to prohibit individual income taxes in Washington State.  Vote YES to repeal the shady Ferguson-Pedersen state income tax scheme.

------------ 

Image of the State Attorney General's Office's "Public Investment Impact Disclosure" lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 ~~~~~~~~

Washington State Supreme Court Justice recommendations

 

Position 1, Scott Edwards and Laura Christensen Colberg
Position 3, Judge David Stevens
Position 5, Judge Dave Larson
Position 7, Todd Bloom 

WA state government grows more expensive

Last week, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the state’s new two-year operating budget into law. The $78 billion spending plan contains nearly $10 billion in new and increased taxes and fees, and represents the fourth consecutive operating budget that spends more than predicted revenue collections. It raises spending by $6 billion – an 8% increase – at a time when we have a budget shortfall. 

The result, the unsustainable budgeting in Olympia continues.

Taxes
As part of their record tax and fee increases, the majority party got very creative and found new ways to dip into your wallet.

• HB 2049 | Property tax spikes: 55% increase of local school district property tax levy authority.  
• SB 5801 | Gas and transportation taxes: Increases in gas taxes, additional license fees, and more.  
• HB 2081 | Business tax increases: Across-the-board business tax increases and additional punitive business tax surcharges on certain industries.  
• SB 5814 | Sales tax expansion: Applies sales tax to critical business services, including temporary staffing, digital services, and security services, and applies tobacco taxes to nicotine products.  
• SB 5813 | Capital gains income and death taxes: Increases tax rates for the capital gains income and estate taxes.  
• HB 2077 | Tesla tax: Punitive excise taxes on the sale or banking of zero-emission credits held by Tesla.  
• SB 5794 | Eliminating tax incentives: Eliminates tax incentives for gold and bullion, low-income energy credits, and storage spaces.  
• SB 5390 | Discover Pass: 50% hike in the cost of a Discover Pass.  
• SB 5583 | Hunting and fishing licenses: 38% fee increase for a hunting and fishing license.  
• SB 5083 | Insurance premiums: Shifts health care costs from state employees to working families ($1,400 per year/family of four).  
• HB 2061 | Concession fees: 10% tax on duty-free stores.  
• SB 5786 | Liquor license fees: Increases in the cost of liquor licenses for grocers, restaurants, bars, and more.  
• HB 1858 | Document recording fees: Applies document recording fees to substitutions or assignments of deeds of trust.  
• HB 1488 | Another property tax increase: Conservation district property tax increase.  
• HB 2015 | Another sales tax increase: Local sales and use tax increase. 
• HB 1392 | Another insurance premium increase: Additional taxes on private health insurance.  
• HB 2003 | Another fishing license increase: Enhanced fee on salmon fishing. 

A state budget is about priorities. The majority party chose to cut support for single parents, the aged, blind, disabled, and crime victims. Instead, they prioritized things like:

• Giving six weeks of unemployment benefits to striking workers
• Paying $154 million for non-citizen healthcare
• Giving $4 million in grants to activist groups
• Retaining DEI funding
• Funding for a study on reparations in Washington state

In the end, taxes were raised, other dedicated accounts were robbed, priorities were misplaced, and we’re almost guaranteed to be looking at another significant budget hole next biennium, because state government has not been right-sized.

The continued assault on our Second Amendment rights continues in Olympia. The governor signed HB 1163 into law. The bill requires a “permit to purchase” a firearm in Washington state beginning on May 1, 2027. The five-year permit requirements include an extensive background check and proof of a recent firearms training course. The details of this approved “training course” have not yet been set. There are serious concerns about where those courses will be held and how much they will cost. Will rural areas have access to these courses? Will the “supply” of these courses meet the “demand” as people seek to exercise their rights? Time will tell.

 -- Brian Burnett, 12th Legislative District, WA

Permit required to buy a firearm in WA

On Tuesday, May 20th, Governor Bob Ferguson signed House Bill 1163, instituting a "permit to purchase" scheme for the purchase and transfer of firearms. The permitting system will take effect on May 1st, 2027, if fully funded by June 30, 2025.

House Bill 1163 establishes a permit to purchase scheme requiring government permission to purchase or transfer a firearm, adds a live-fire training component, and establishes an illegal government registry of firearm owners and their personal information. 

Permits will need to be renewed every 5 years. This law will do nothing to address Washington’s crime problem, but it will make firearm ownership nearly unobtainable, both practically and financially. 

HB 1163 passed with a strict party-line vote. All Democrats voted for HB 1163, no Republican voted for HB 1163.

2025 Washingtom State legislature really messes up.

The 2025 episode of the Washington State legislature has truly screwed up our way of life and chances for prosperity.

 

After voting to shut the public out of the budget process the Democrats
Increased property tax
Increased gasoline tax 

~~~~

The Democrats' budget cuts
Cut childcare
Cut domestic violence prevention programs
Cut college tuition aid
Cut supports to state & local fairs

Increases fishing and hunting licenses by 38%,
Increases the Discover Pass fee 50%
.
And we got
"Rent stabilization" which is  exactly the from of rent control that made rentals so expensive  (and small) in places like New York City and San Francisco.
Gun regulations that effectively ban private firearms
Massive taxes and shrinking rental availability - Democrats gave us this mess.

Do not vote for Democrats.

~~~~~~~~

Update: Gov Bob Ferguson just revealed his ulterior motive for signing rent control into law.  Ferguson tweeted:

"One of my administration’s top priorities is making it easier to build housing of all kinds. Senate Bill 5611 helps address the state’s housing shortage by reducing permitting timelines. This will ultimately reduce the cost of development projects, making it easier to build. Thank you to prime sponsor Sen. Jesse Salomon and the Legislature’s unanimous support."

@GovBobFerguson

Ferguson choose to side with big corporations who can build sterile new apartments complexes.  You see, new construction is exempt from rent control for ten years.

Washington State rent control

Politicians pretend renters are getting scalped in a skirmish of class warfare.  They spread that viewpoint 'cause it can give them power over housing. That means they get very intimate control over lives.

~~~~~~~~

Sen. Keith Goehner, R-Dryden, and lead Republican on the Senate Housing Committee, issued this statement:

House Bill 1217

Let’s call it what it is: House Bill 1217 is price control, plain and simple. And price control has a long, proven track record of failure. This bill would impose arbitrary caps on rent increases, penalize housing providers with excessive regulations and fines, and ultimately reduce the supply of affordable housing in Washington.

Housing affordability is about supply, not politics. We’ve seen it nationwide: when housing gets built, rent comes down. In places like Austin, Atlanta, and Phoenix, where construction has surged, rents have declined. But this bill does nothing to build more homes. It drives builders away from the state.

The message is clear: price control plus uncapped property tax increases equals higher costs and less housing. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Most landlords in this state aren’t big corporations  they’re families trying to make ends meet, people who’ve invested in a duplex or a rental home. When you cap their income but not their costs, they’re forced to defer maintenance, sell their properties, or leave the rental business entirely.

Washington doesn’t need more bureaucracy. We need more housing. This bill is about short-term posturing at the expense of long-term stability and prosperity. I strongly oppose HB 1217 and will continue fighting for policies that grow opportunity, protect renters, and keep our communities strong.

~~~~~~~~

The legislature passed this bill and it is on the Governor's desk for his signature or veto. If you wish to urge the Gov. Ferguson to veto HB 1217, use this link https://governor.wa.gov/contacting-governor/contacting-governors-office/send-gov-ferguson-e-message