[CCCNFBW] The Columbian: Clark County voters to weigh in on nine charter amendments

[Merribeth Greenberg]

Clark County voters to weigh in on nine charter amendments
Proposals include term limits, budget transparency, elections, taxes and
the initiative process
Photo of Shari Phiel
By Shari Phiel, Columbian Staff Reporter
Published: October 10, 2026, 2:02am
Updated: October 12, 2026, 7:46am
Clark County voters to weigh in on nine charter amendments - The Columbian
<https://www.columbian.com/news/2026/oct/10/clark-county-voters-to-weigh-in-on-nine-charter-amendments/>

Clark County voters Nov. 3 will decide on nine county charter amendments.

The proposals by the Charter Review Commission cover a wide range of
issues, including term limits, budget transparency, elections, taxes and
the initiative process. While some amendments seem to have flown under the
radar (see sidebar), others have attracted strong support and opposition.

Amendment 19: Term limits
This amendment would limit the number of consecutive terms county
councilors can serve, balancing the benefit of accumulated experience
against new ideas and interests, its sponsors said.

“What that would bring to Clark County is that a county councilor can serve
for three consecutive terms, which would be 12 years, and then they would
have to take a break, sit out for a full term and then their eligibility
would return,” said Brandon Erickson, chair of the Charter Review
Commission. “And if the public wanted them back in there, they could be
reelected.”

Rob Anderson from Reform Clark County described the amendment as “a real
head scratcher, because it’s the only charter amendment I’ve seen that is
offering to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

     Uncontested amendments
Not every amendment on the general election ballot raised hackles or
fervent support. Here are the less controversial amendments.
Amendment 21: Council powers

The county council currently may nominate members for three boards and
commissions: the planning commission, board of equalization and historic
preservation commission, sharing that authority with the county manager.
The three boards were selected when the charter was created because of the
quasijudicial decisions each makes.

For all other boards and commissions, only the county manager may nominate
members. The county council’s role is limited to confirming or rejecting
those nominations.

If passed, Amendment 21 would give the council authority with the county
manager for all boards and commissions except for the ethics commission.

Amendment 23: County manager annual report
This amendment would make it mandatory for the county manager to deliver an
annual report on the county’s overall fiscal and governmental health. The
report would also have to be made available to the public.

Amendment 26: Initiative reform
To date, no citizen-led county initiative or mini-initiative has
successfully made it to the ballot. The Charter Review Commission makes the
process more achievable by changing how the number of required signatures
for petitions in unincorporated areas of the county are calculated. The
calculation would be based on the last gubernatorial election, the same as
all other calculations for initiatives and referendums. The amendment would
also allow the county auditor’s office to use random statistical sampling
when verifying signatures, although no petition can be rejected solely
based on statistical sampling.

Amendment 27: Performance audits
This amendment would allow the county council to create a
performance-auditing process to independently assess the county’s financial
systems and records, verify compliance with applicable laws and policies,
and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of county programs and
operations. The amendment would not replace audits already required by
state law or conducted by the Washington State Auditor’s office nor allow
the county council to assume authority for audits performed by the county
auditor’s office.

He said there’s no history of county councilors serving more than three
consecutive terms, but passing the amendment would prevent voters from
reelecting experienced councilors they believe are doing a good job.

“But people should not be limited in their choice of representation unless
it becomes a clear problem that needs to be addressed,” Anderson said.

Of the seven counties in Washington with a home rule charter, Erickson said
four counties have term limits in place.

“The intent is that if this passes, then next year we would look at a term
limit amendment for the executive offices, which would be like auditor or
clerk,” he said.

Amendment 20: Budget transparency
Supported by Republican commission members Peter Silliman and Brad Benton,
the amendment would move county budget deadlines up by one to two months.

Currently, the budget process begins in mid- to late October with final
council adoption occurring in early December. Amendment 20 would require
the initial budget presentation be held the first week of September with a
second presentation in October and the final adoption hearing in November.

By starting the budget process earlier in the year, more residents will be
able to participate, the sponsors said.

“When the budget is being adopted and the public has a chance to chime in
on it, it’s at a very busy time of the year. … There’s the election,
there’s Thanksgiving, there’s Christmas,” Erickson said. “It just shifts
the schedule earlier in the year to allow for some of those more critical
decision-making milestones to occur at a time when, hopefully, the public
is able to pay more attention.”

Opponents of the amendment say there is nothing preventing the county from
beginning the budget process earlier, and that passing the amendment would
take away needed flexibility for the council, county manager and staff.

Amendment 22: Nonpartisan elections
In 2020, Clark County voters approved making all county elected executive
and legislative offices nonpartisan. However, remaining language in the
charter states these offices should be elected and provided for in a
partisan manner. During election season, this means all county elected
offices are included on primary ballots even if only one or two candidates
are running for an office.

Amendment 22 would treat county elected offices like other nonpartisan
races, leaving them off the primary ballot if there are two or fewer
candidates.

Erickson said it can be confusing to voters when the same candidates for
the same races are listed on both the primary and general election ballot.

“There’s also some cost savings, a little bit of savings on the publication
but also the time it takes to count those votes,” he said.

Opponents to the amendment say removing these races from the primary ballot
shortchanges voters and candidates.

Anderson said passing Amendment 22 would give incumbents a significant
advantage over their challengers. Ann Donnelly, member of the Charter
Review Commission, was among those working to defeat the amendment. In a
statement for the Voters’ Pamphlet, Donnelly said removing the races from
primary ballots would also leave off important information about the
candidates and where they stand on important issues.

“The primary election introduces candidates, encourages public discussion
and gives voters time to compare qualifications before November,” she said
in the statement.

Anderson agreed that voters would have less information about their
options, which will lead to fewer voters participating in elections.

“This Charter amendment takes us in the opposite direction we should be
going,” he said.

Amendment 24: Housing Impact Analysis
The amendment would require analysis of land supply and construction cost
impacts before land use or construction code changes are adopted by the
county council. The analysis must be data-driven and use generally accepted
planning and housing methods. Findings must also be made publicly available
for review. The amendment also requires all analysis work to be funded by
the county’s general fund, rather than development-related fees, like
permit, impact or mitigation fees.

Clark County has struggled with meaningful ways to address the ongoing
shortage of affordable housing. Supporters of this amendment said requiring
a clear, credible analysis upfront will create a predictable and
accountable policy process that balances development goals with community
needs.

“The intent was to put the council in a position to make a more informed
vote. A similar amendment passed last year in Whatcom County,” Erickson
said.

Former Charter Review Commissioner Chuck Green is among those opposed to
the amendment. Green provided the “against” statement for the Voters’
Pamphlet. He said the amendment is an example of overreach and
micromanagement.

“Housing and land use policy and priorities should be left to the council,
where current needs can be assessed at public hearings,” he said in the
statement.

Green said home construction costs are outside of the council’s control and
that construction engineering standards are primarily driven by state and
federal regulations. Additionally, local land use decisions, code and
policies do not cause housing shortages, he said.

“More analysis will not solve the problem of housing affordability. This
amendment would cost taxpayers for issues the county cannot control,” Green
said.

Amendment 25: Supermajority vote
Perhaps the most contested of all the amendments, Amendment 25 would
require a supermajority of the county council to increase or create a new
tax.

While a supermajority vote requires a two-thirds or 66.67 percent vote of
the council, the reality is that four of the five council members — 80
percent — would have to vote for the new tax or tax increase. Currently, a
vote by three of the five county councilors, or 60 percent, is required to
pass.

“There is some discussion amongst some of the charter commissioners to look
at expanding the council to seven (members). Should that happen, a
supermajority then would be 5 out of 7,” Erickson said.

Charter Review Commissioner Janet Landesberg provided the Voters’ Pamphlet
statement against the amendment. The county council has been very
thoughtful and deliberate when voting for new taxes or tax increases, she
said.

“In seven of the last 14 years, (the council) did not approve the 1 percent
property tax increase allowed by law,” she said. “By not increasing taxes
by 1 percent, Clark County has had a hard time keeping up with services
people expect and the state requires.”

Allowing two councilors to effectively control funding decisions would put
those public services at risk, she said.

Clark County Elections will begin mailing ballots Oct. 16.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/cccnfbw_nfbnet.org/attachments/20261023/ba62c3eb/attachment.htm>