WA voters might say yes to amending the state constitution this fall. Here's why

There might be only one thing the socialist alt-weekly The Stranger and the libertarian think tank the Washington Policy Center agree on this election season, and it’s at the very beginning of your Nov. 4 ballot.

If passed, Senate Joint Resolution 8201 would amend the Washington Constitution and let the state invest money in the stock market to try to grow a long-term care program.

Voters said ‘no’ to this idea in 2020, but a new poll suggests they might be changing their minds.

The program in question is WA Cares, which working Washingtonians pay 58 cents out of every $100 on their paychecks into. Those who qualify, starting potentially next year, will get up to $36,500 or more as inflation rises.

That probably won’t go very far with the high cost of nurses, therapists, and home health care aides, and the need is growing with America’s aging population, many of whom will be too rich for Medicaid but too poor to pay out-of-pocket for assisted living facilities or caregivers.

“I think WA Cares needs all the help it can get,” said Elizabeth New, an analyst for Washington Policy Center and longtime critic of the program. “There were solvency concerns about this thing for years, and we need it to succeed. People's wages are being taken already.”

Growing the dollars from Washingtonians’ paychecks by investing them in the stock market seems like a simple solution. The investments would be decided by the Washington State Investment Board, which already manages a number of pension funds for teachers, police, firefighters, and judges with a great track record.

A bipartisan majority of lawmakers support it, including Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson and Republican state Senate leader John Braun.

A simple majority of voters might also support it too, according to a poll from Emerson College Polling, commissioned by the left-leaning Northwest Progressive Institute. Six hundred likely voters participated via text and online panel Oct. 20-21.

Nearly half (47%) said they’d vote "yes" on the measure, with only a third saying they’d vote "no," and a little over a fifth undecided. That immediately looks like this amendment has better odds than five years ago, when 54% of Washingtonians rejected a similar proposal.

A few things could be contributing. The stock market was doing terribly in October 2020, whereas for the last few months, Wall Street has been optimistic. Voter turnout broke records in Washington state in 2020, and way fewer voters turn out in odd years.

Kristin Hyde, the press secretary for the campaign to pass the measure, said voters are far more familiar with WA Cares than they were in 2020 when it was new. They’ve been paying into it for a couple years and voted to keep it mandatory for W-2 earners last year.

“I can say voters had little to no familiarity with Washington’s long-term care benefit program in 2020. A lot has changed since then,” Hyde wrote. “Given the context of federal cuts to Medicaid (which pays for 60-plus percent of long-term care expenses), and growing familiarity with the care crisis, we're confident voters will support this measure to strengthen the Fund.”

New, who supported the initiative to make WA Cares optional last year, believes voters then and now may be confused about what these measures do.

“I think some people still are going to vote ‘no’ against the measure because they think it has something to do with whether or not the fund exists at all. And that's unfortunate,” New said. “I think voters need to do a good job of really researching what exactly they're being asked, and it's not their opinion on WA Cares.”

There is a little bit of opposition to the measure from a few conservatives and progressives in the Legislature. GOP state party chair Jim Walsh voted against the resolution putting it on the ballot, along with Democratic state Sen. Bob Hasegawa.

“No one knows where our economy and the stock market is going in the future, especially now with all the economic and political uncertainty we’re facing,” Hasegawa wrote in an email to KUOW, pointing out that long-term care funds can already be invested in municipal bonds, which have lower returns but are safer. “This proposal basically shifts our fiduciary responsibility from acting in the best interests of the people, to acting in the best interests of shareholders—rooting for the stock market to maximize profits.”

Other Democrats who voted against it, like state Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, have since changed their minds and put their support behind it.

“I had … conflict about my confidence in the stock market at all when I made that decision,” Trudeau wrote in a text. “But I have spoken to proponents and I believe that this will help the program overall.”