Election update: Counting is still underway, and the results are unofficial. For the latest returns on Propositions 3 and 5, see our county results coverage. The explanation below describes what the two proposals would change.
Snohomish County voters were asked Nov. 3 whether to remove party labels from the remaining partisan county offices and require a larger council majority for certain tax decisions. Propositions 3 and 5 would amend the county charter if approved.
Proposition 3: County offices without party labels
Proposition 3 would make all elected county offices nonpartisan. The county council, executive and prosecuting attorney are currently partisan offices; several other county offices already operate without party labels.
Candidates would appear on the ballot without a political party designation. The proposal sets out a transition across different election years, beginning in 2027.
In the official voters’ pamphlet, supporters argue that removing labels could encourage more candidates to run and reduce partisan polarization. Opponents say party preferences give voters useful information about candidates’ views and that removing them would reduce transparency.
Proposition 5: Four votes for certain new taxes
Proposition 5 would require four of the five county councilmembers to approve a new councilmanic tax after Jan. 1, 2027. Councilmanic taxes are taxes the council can impose without a public vote.
The amendment defines a new tax as one the council already has authority to levy but has not levied, or one whose authority is granted after Jan. 1, 2027. The four-vote rule would cover assessing, levying or increasing those new taxes.
The text excludes fees, rates, charges and special assessments. It also exempts councilmanic taxes already levied as of Jan. 1, 2027, and renewals or reauthorizations of those taxes that do not increase the rate. That scope matters when considering the measure’s broader ballot title about tax increases.
In the pamphlet arguments, supporters say a higher threshold would require broader agreement and protect household budgets. Opponents argue that two councilmembers could block decisions supported by the other three, putting services at risk.
Jerry Cornfield’s Oct. 26 report for Washington State Standard brought these proposals to our attention. Justabouts prepared this local explainer from the county’s proposal texts and voters’ pamphlet.
