Tacoma defies initiative system with block of minimum wage vote | Opinion
A minimum wage initiative in Tacoma was always bound to be controversial. But usually the controversy over local minimum wage measures is over whether or not they’re a good idea. Tacoma has found a new way to argue about the issue.
Simply put, Tacoma’s city council voted too late to refer a citizen initiative to the November ballot. The vote was on Aug. 8, but the deadline to do so was Aug. 5. Since then, the City of Tacoma has argued in court that, essentially, no one can make them put the initiative on a ballot.
Most recently, the city argued a judge can’t order a special election in February to give voters a say on the initiative, which was spearheaded by a union that represents local grocery and retail workers, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367. The effort was supported by a coalition of groups including Tacoma for All.
If that name sounds familiar, it’s because the group also submitted the initiative on tenants’ rights that went to a vote in 2023. The group then sued Tacoma over what it said was a misleading, competing initiative that asked voters to approve housing policies the council had already passed into law.
Normally I’d concede that, just because an organization makes a mistake, that doesn’t mean they did it out of malice. I’m finding it really hard to look at it that way right now. Instead, it seems like the city is intentionally blocking a citizen initiative just because it wants to. What’s more, the city’s government and legal team isn’t doing anything to dispel the notion.
Again, this isn’t an argument over whether we should raise the minimum wage to $20, which is what the initiative proposes. Nor is it an argument over whether this particular initiative would do more harm than good. It’s not even an argument over the merits of citizens’ initiatives.
The question is whether the city can — or should — nuke an initiative that it doesn’t like. I’d say it’s a bad look.
The City of Tacoma doesn’t like the initiative
I asked former mayor and local historian Bill Baarsma about the situation.
“I don’t think it’s ever happened before,” he said, referring to the council waiting until after the deadline to send an initiative to a ballot. I also couldn’t find a similar example in Tacoma.
Baarsma called the situation a “head scratcher,” and I have to agree. I’d also go further and say we’re owed an explanation.
I asked city spokesperson Maria Lee why the city council voted after the deadline, and how it responds to the claim that the city intentionally stalled the bill to avoid a vote from the people. In response, she referred me to two statements on the matter, one from mayor Victoria Woodards and the other from the City of Tacoma.
This answer didn’t reassure me. Instead of explaining why the city council voted late, both statements detail why the city and its elected officials don’t want the initiative passed.
“This initiative raises significant concerns about unintended consequences for our community,” Woodards said in her statement.
A good faith interpretation might say Woodards was only explaining why the city council didn’t adopt the initiative into law, which it also could have done in response to receiving the petition. But it seems clear the city’s dislike of the initiative is driving its strategy going forward.
The City of Tacoma’s later statements echoed the mayor, saying the initiative “would have negative impacts on every Tacoma resident and their family.”
That may all turn out to be true, but it’s not an answer to the question at hand. In fact, it fuels the argument that the city’s government is intentionally blocking the initiative for political reasons.
The fight over local initiatives goes to court
Groups who supported the petition have sued the city over its tardiness.
The judge in that case has ordered that the initiative go on a special election ballot in February of next year. The Pierce County Elections office says it can put the initiative on a February ballot based on the judge’s order.
But the city’s legal department says the judge has no authority to order an election. What’s more, the union and its supporters may have to start over and submit a new petition for the November 2026 ballot. A lawyer for the group said in a court filing that city attorney Chris Bacha told her the current initiative would not go on a ballot.
In addition to its claim that the judge can’t order an election, Bacha’s team has argued it’s not always a due process violation when the city council doesn’t follow its own rules. The lawyers also say there’s no constitutional right at the state or federal level for citizens to bring local initiatives.
I’m not a legal scholar, but I will say this. The city could win on all these arguments and it still wouldn’t make things fair.
This story was originally published September 25, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
