Welcome to the Tuesday, Feb. 11, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Seattle voters to decide on two competing propositions on Feb. 11
- School board recall efforts in Arizona and Idaho start collecting signatures
- On the Ballot breaks down how legislative incumbents performed in 2024
Seattle voters to decide on two competing propositions on Feb. 11
Seattle voters will decide on two competing propositions—1A and 1B—on Feb. 11. Today, we’ll give you a rundown of these propositions and why they are on the ballot. We’ll also give you a snapshot of what voters in other parts of the country will decide on Feb. 11.
Let’s start with a look at Propositions 1A and 1B. In 2023, Seattle voters approved Initiative 135 by a vote of 57.1% to 42.9%. That initiative created the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), which develops, owns, and maintains housing developments. The competing propositions will decide how to fund SSHD.
Voters will decide on two questions. Question 1 asks whether voters support using revenue from taxes on payroll expenses to fund the development and maintenance of social housing in Seattle—either by:
- Establishing a new tax of 5% on annual compensation above $1 million paid in Seattle to any employee, as proposed by Proposition 1A.
- Using existing payroll expense tax revenues to allocate $10,000,000 from the next five annual budgets, as proposed by Proposition 1B.
Voters will then decide on Question 2, regardless of how they answered the first question. Question 2 asks whether the city should adopt Proposition 1A or Proposition 1B.
Question 1 requires a simple majority vote for approval. If most voters select “Yes,” the city will adopt the funding proposition with the most votes. However, the city will not adopt either proposition if most voters select “No” on Question 1.
According to the organization leading the campaign to support Proposition 1A, Let’s Build Social Housing (Yes on Prop 1A), “This initiative will create an annual, dedicated revenue stream for social housing in Seattle. This revenue stream can then be bonded on to accelerate production of social housing.”
Councilmember Maritza Rivera, a supporter of Proposition 1B, said, “[Prop 1B] balances the need for innovation with the need for accountability. It also allows the Seattle Social Housing Developer, a new public development authority, the opportunity to show what they can build here in Seattle. But it won’t give a blank check to another new agency that does not have the experience creating housing.”
On June 24, House Our Neighbors submitted 37,819 signatures to Seattle’s Office of the City Clerk to get Proposition 1A on the ballot. The initiative cleared the requirement of 26,521 valid signatures. On Sept. 19, council members voted 6-1 to place the alternative ballot measure, Proposition 1B, on the ballot, with Councilmember Tammy Morales voting “no.”
Now, let’s take a peek at what voters in other parts of the country will decide on Feb. 11.
- Seattle Public Schools voters will decide on two levy renewals. Proposition 1 would renew the educational programs and operations levy for three years, generating $747 million. Proposition 2 would renew the capital levy for six years, generating $1.8 billion. Both were last renewed in 2022, with each receiving more than 75% of the vote.
- In Nebraska’s Millard Public Schools, voters will decide on the Millard Public Schools School Facilities Bond Measure, which would authorize the district to issue $158 million in bonds to fund school facility improvements and educational programs and levy a tax to repay the bonds.
- In Oklahoma’s Putnam City Schools, voters will decide on Proposition 1. This measure would authorize the district to issue up to $186.7 million in bonds, with bond revenue going to fund school repairs and construction, with bonds bearing an interest rate of 10% per year.
- Putnam City Schools voters will also decide on Proposition 2. This measure would authorize the district to issue up to $12 million in bonds, with bond revenue going to fund transportation equipment, with bonds bearing an interest rate of 10% per year.
There were 502 local measures across 37 states on the ballot for voters in the top 100 largest cities and state capitals in the U.S. in 2024. Voters approved 435 (86.65%) of those measures, and defeated 67 (13.35%).
School board recall efforts in Arizona and Idaho start collecting signatures
Petitioners attempting to recall school board members in Arizona and Idaho started collecting signatures in the first week of February. Today, we’ll give you the rundown on these efforts.
Let’s start with Maricopa County, Arizona, where recall backers are targeting two of the five Liberty Elementary School District Governing Board members—President Bryan Parks and Vice President Kristopher Kenyon. During the 2023 school year, 4,450 students attended one of the district’s eight schools.
Supporters of the recall said district officials were pushing teachers and principals out of the district if they voiced concerns about leadership decisions. More than a dozen teachers have resigned since the 2024-2025 school year began. More than 1,600 students, about 38% of the student population, stayed home from school on Feb. 3 to protest district leadership.
During a Feb. 3 board meeting, Parks said, “Can we please stop the false narrative that this board does not support or listen to teachers? This board’s actions speak directly to our dedication to the support and success of our teachers. We’ve addressed every major concern brought to this board by our educators.”
To put the recalls on the ballot, supporters must submit signatures by June 3. Organizers must collect 2,950 signatures for the recall against Kenyon and 2,126 signatures for the recall against Parks.
Previously, efforts were made against two other Liberty Elementary School District governing board members in 2021 and 2023. Neither effort went to a vote.
Moving on to Bannock County, Idaho, an effort is underway to recall Raymond Knoff from his position as the Zone 4 representative on the Pocatello-Chubbuck School District No. 25 board of trustees after the board voted 3-2 to close Washington Elementary School. The school is in Zone 4 of the school district, and Knoff voted in favor of the closure. According to the Idaho State Journal, the district has lost more than $8 million in funding from the state since 2019 due to decreasing student enrollment.
Recall supporters said they were concerned with how the board decided to close the school. They also said Knoff refused to consider other options before voting to close the school.
“None of us wants to close a school,” Knoff said during the vote to close Washington Elementary School, “but we have got to maintain fiscal responsibility.”
To get the recall against Knoff on the ballot, recall supporters must collect 853 signatures by April 21. If supporters want the recall to be on the May ballot, they must submit the signatures by March 31.
Other members of the Pocatello-Chubbuck School board were named in recall efforts in 2018 and 2020. The 2018 effort was suspended before the petition submission deadline, but the 2020 effort went to the ballot. All three members included in that effort kept their seats.
The chart below shows how many recall efforts we followed each year since 2009. The 2025 numbers are current as of Feb. 6.
On the Ballot breaks down how legislative incumbents performed in 2024
With the state legislative session in full swing, we’re looking back at the 2024 legislative races in this week’s episode of our weekly podcast, On the Ballot.
As we mentioned in an earlier edition of The Brew, 2024 was the year of the incumbent in legislative races—94% of incumbents won re-election. That was the highest rate of incumbent victories in any even year since we started collecting this data in 2012. It was also the second even-year election where more incumbents lost in primaries than in general elections.
In this episode, host Geoff Pallay and Ballotpedia’s Joel Williams will examine these numbers and discuss what they reveal about shifting dynamics within the parties. They will also discuss how these outcomes will affect legislative control and policy-making in key states.