AI Ballot Check Washington · General election, November 3, 2026

Snohomish County Proposition No. 2

Labels are based on a detector's reading of the text and are not a claim about the author.

The statements in this pamphlet are printed exactly as submitted. No spelling, grammatical, or other corrections have been made.

appears humanappears AI-editedappears AI

Statement For · Brian Sullivan

statement likely AI

Committee: Brian Sullivan

No one knows when the next recession, natural disaster, or financial emergency will occur. Proposition No. 2 helps prepare Snohomish County before, not after, the next crisis by strengthening the County’s emergency savings and long-term financial preparedness. This Charter amendment establishes a stronger framework for protecting County reserve funds, so essential public services can continue during emergencies and severe economic downturns. It creates a dedicated catastrophic stabilization fund, requires long-term funding policies, limits the use of reserve funds to genuine emergencies, requires a replenishment plan after withdrawals, and maintains a supermajority vote before reserve funds may be spent. Proposition No. 2 does not create a new tax or require higher taxes. Instead, it relies on existing financial resources such as investment earnings, one-time revenues, emergency reimbursements, and other funding sources established through future ordinances. Just as families save for emergencies, responsible governments should do the same. A yes vote helps ensure Snohomish County is prepared for future disasters, economic uncertainty, and unforeseen emergencies while protecting essential public services and promoting responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Rebuttal of argument against

State and federal disaster aid usually arrives as reimbursement, not cash available when catastrophe strikes. After the Oso disaster, Snohomish County spent $22 million in six weeks from its General Fund. Proposition 2 provides immediate resources, protects essential services from sudden cuts, and keeps the County financially stable while reimbursements are pending. Requiring four Council votes safeguards emergency savings from routine spending while allowing rapid action in the event of a catastrophe. Vote yes on Proposition 2.

Statement Against · Hans Dunshee and Janice R. Greene

statement appears partly AI

Committee: Hans Dunshee and Janice R. Greene

Vote no. This is unnecessary and bureaucratic. The County Council can do all of this without the rigid bureaucracy. This proposal was last minute and untested. There are risks. It can’t be changed. Roughly seventy percent of the County’s budget supports law enforcement and courts which are the county’s core responsibility. “Declared emergencies, catastrophic events, and natural disaster” response are areas where state and federal programs, including FEMA, carry primary responsibility. A modest county fund would not be enough for a true disaster, and it would pull local dollars away from the services residents rely on every day. The spending requirement is the deepest flaw and anti-democracy. Spending would need four of five Council members. It reduces the weight of each resident’s vote by increasing the power of a small minority. More bureaucracy, less democracy, wrong place to put our local tax dollars, vote no.

Rebuttal of argument for

Proposition 2 diverts existing financial resources that are already needed to fund essential public services. Take FEMA emergency reimbursements. Those dollars repay bills the County already incurred responding to a disaster. Redirect them into a stabilization fund, and those bills still must be paid, forcing cuts to other essential services. This proposition takes from today’s core services to build a fund that is too small to meet tomorrow’s real emergency. Vote no on Proposition 2.