Washington Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491 (2016)

Washington Initiative 1491
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Firearms
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Initiative 732 d
Initiative 735 a
Initiative 1433 a
Initiative 1464 d
Initiative 1491 a
Initiative 1501 a
Advisory Vote 14 a
Advisory Vote 15 a
SJR 8210 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, a type of initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders to remove an individual's access to firearms.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders remove an individual's access to firearms.

Election results

Initiative 1491
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		2,234,799	69.39%
No		985,658	30.61%

Election results from Washington Secretary of State

Overview

Status of firearms in Washington

Voters in Washington approved Initiative 594 in November 2014. The measure required background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. During the same election, voters rejected Initiative 591, which would have prevented the government from implementing background checks unless a federal standard is established.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

The campaign supporting Initiative 1491, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, raised $4.18 million. Opponents organized one committee to oppose the measure, but did not receive contributions. The top donor to the “Yes” campaign was Seattle-based venture capitalist Nicolas Hanauer, who contributed $790,000. The National Rifle Association opposed the initiative. Polls indicated that around 70 percent of voters support Initiative 1491 prior to the election.

Initiative design

Extreme risk protection orders

Initiative 1491 authorized courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” which prevent a person from possessing or accessing firearms. The person would need to be considered a significant danger to himself or herself or others before an extreme risk protection order can be authorized. The measure empowered certain individuals, including police, family, and household members, to petition a court for an extreme risk protection order on a person. The initiative provided that petitions need to explain facts that demonstrate a reasonable fear of future actions by the person. It also required petitions to be filed under oath. It provided that extreme risk protection orders last one year. The measure permitted petitioners to ask for the order to be renewed for an additional year. The measure was designed to allow persons under order to request a hearing to argue that the order be terminated.

Ex parte extreme risk protection orders

The measure also authorized courts to issue “ex parte extreme risk protection order,” which would hasten the process of prohibiting a person from possessing or accessing firearms. It was designed to require petitioners to demonstrate a significant and immediate risk to invoke an ex parte extreme risk protection order.

Violating the law

Initiative 1491 made it a crime to file a petition with intentionally false information. It also made violating either type of protection order a crime.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1491 concerns court-issued extreme risk protection orders temporarily preventing access to firearms. This measure would allow police, family, or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing firearms access by persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This measure would authorize courts, upon petition by police or a "family or household member," to issue an "extreme risk protection order" to prevent an individual from accessing firearms for a specified time period, if the court finds that the individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others with a firearm. Temporary ex parte orders could be issued where there is sufficient evidence of significant danger in the near future.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

The Law as it Presently Exists Washington law provides for civil protection orders in certain circumstances. These orders restrict one person from contacting another person. Civil protection orders are mostly entered in family law cases, such as divorce proceedings, where domestic violence is alleged. Protection orders also can be issued to protect victims during criminal cases and in other circumstances where a person can show he or she is in danger from another person. A person subject to a protection order may be required to surrender his or her firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol license while the order is in place. This can happen if four conditions are met: (1) the order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, a child of an intimate partner, or the person's own child (an "intimate partner" is a current or former spouse or domestic partner, a person with whom the restrained person has a child in common, or a person with whom the restrained person shares or shared a residence in a dating relationship); (2) the order includes a finding that the restrained person is a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or the child; (3) the order specifically restrains the person from using or threatening physical force against the intimate partner or child; and (4) the restrained person was given notice and an opportunity to participate in a hearing before the order issued. It is a crime for a person restrained by such an order to possess a firearm. A court sometimes may order the temporary surrender of firearms before a hearing and without prior notice. The court may do so only if convinced that "irreparable injury" could result before the scheduled hearing. This option is available to the court only for protection orders addressing sexual assault, stalking, harassment, domestic violence, dissolution of marriage, parental rights, and child support. There are other situations where a court may order a person to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and a concealed pistol license. A court may order surrender if it finds that the person used, displayed, or threatened to use them in a felony. The court also may order surrender if the person committed fourth degree assault, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, or first degree criminal trespass against a family or household member. If the evidence is clear and convincing, the court must order the surrender. A person who has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment is barred from possessing a firearm. After treatment, that person's right to possess a firearm may be restored by court order. But the law does not authorize a court to restrict access to firearms by a person experiencing a mental health crisis or exhibiting threatening behavior unless that person is subject to one of the civil protection orders summarized above. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved The measure would allow courts to issue "extreme risk protection orders." These orders would prevent a person who poses a significant danger to himself/herself or others from possessing or accessing firearms. The measure refers to such a person as the "respondent." The measure would create two kinds of court orders. The first type of order is called an "extreme risk protection order." A member of the respondent's family or household or a person in a dating relationship with the respondent could petition a superior court for an extreme risk protection order. The measure defines who is a family or household member and it lists specific information that must be contained in the petition. The petition must be accompanied by a statement made under oath. That statement must explain the specific facts that show a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by the respondent. The petition would be served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer or agency also could file a petition, along with the required factual statement made under oath. The officer or agency must make a good faith attempt to notify a member of the respondent's family or household. They also must try to notify any other known person who may be at risk of violence by the respondent. Each notice must state that the officer or agency is petitioning for an extreme risk protection order. It also must include referrals to mental health, domestic violence, counseling, or similar resources. The superior court must hold a hearing on the petition for the protection order. The court may issue the order only if it finds, based on the evidence, that the respondent "poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm." If the superior court issues an extreme risk protection order, the order is served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. The order would require the respondent to immediately surrender all firearms and any concealed pistol license to the local law enforcement agency. The order would bar the respondent from obtaining or possessing firearms while an order is in effect. If the respondent does not comply, the court would be authorized to issue a warrant to compel the surrender of these items. An extreme risk protection order would last for one year. The same persons who may seek an order in the first place may ask the court to renew the order for another year. The same procedures and requirements apply to a renewal request as to the original request, and the court applies the same standard. The respondent could request a hearing to demonstrate that the order should be terminated. The respondent could file one termination request during each 12-month period the order is in effect. The respondent then must demonstrate at the hearing that he or she does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to the respondent or others by having a firearm. The person who petitioned for the order must be notified of the request and hearing. The second type of order, called an "ex parte extreme risk protection order," would be more immediate. "Ex parte" is a legal term that refers to a hearing held without notice to the other side. This type of order would be available where there is a showing of a significant risk of personal injury in the near future. A petition for this order could be filed in municipal court, district court, or superior court. The court must hold a hearing on the day the petition is filed or on the court's next business day. If the court issues the ex parte order, it would last only until there is a hearing in superior court on whether a one-year "extreme risk protection order" should be issued. That hearing must be held within 14 days. All the requirements for issuing a one-year "extreme risk protection order" explained above would apply at that hearing. The measure would impose the same notice and surrender requirements for an ex parte extreme risk protection order as for the one-year order. The measure imposes the same consequences for failure to comply. Like the one-year order, the ex parte order also would be served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. The measure makes it a crime to file a false or intentionally harassing petition. It also makes it a crime to violate either type of extreme risk protection order. If an extreme risk protection order expires or is terminated, the surrendered firearms must be returned to the respondent, but only if the law enforcement agency holding the firearms confirms that the respondent is currently eligible to possess firearms under federal and state law.

Full text

The full text can be found here.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The summary section of the fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Summary Initiative 1491 authorizes the court to issue extreme risk protection orders that require the respondent to surrender his/her firearms and concealed pistol license. Total expenditures for state and local government cannot be determined. The impact depends on the number of petitions filed and granted, and the number of violations of a granted order, which cannot be estimated. This fiscal impact statement uses data from similar types of protection orders to provide estimated costs that could result from the initiative. There would be an unknown revenue increase from assessed fines.

”

Support

Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility led the campaign in support of Initiative 1491.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Jay Inslee (D)
• U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-9)
• Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) of Arizona

Parties

• Washington State Democrats
• University of Washington Young Democrats
• Benton County Democrats
• Skagit County Democrats
• Spokane County Democrats
• Whatcom County Democrats
• 1st Legislative District Democrats
• 3rd Legislative District Democrats
• 4th Legislative District Democrats
• 5th Legislative District Democrats
• 8th Legislative District Democrats
• 10th Legislative District Democrats
• 17th Legislative District Democrats
• 18th Legislative District Democrats
• 20th Legislative District Democrats
• 23rd Legislative District Democrats
• 25th Legislative District Democrats
• 27th Legislative District Democrats
• 28th Legislative District Democrats
• 30th Legislative District Democrats
• 32nd Legislative District Democrats
• 36th Legislative District Democrats
• 37th Legislative District Democrats
• 38th Legislative District Democrats
• 39th Legislative District Democrats
• 40th Legislative District Democrats
• 41st Legislative District Democrats
• 43rd Legislative District Democrats
• 44th Legislative District Democrats
• 45th Legislative District Democrats
• 46th Legislative District Democrats
• 47th Legislative District Democrats
• 49th Legislative District Democrats
• Seattle Socialist Alternative

Organizations

Civic organizations League of Women Voters of Washington Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii Greater Seattle Business Association Anti-Defamation League, Pacific NW Center for Justice – Attorneys and Advocates Legal Voice League of Women Voters – Spokane Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce Northwest Progressive Institute Washington Peace Alliance Smith-Barbieri Progressive Fund, A Charitable Foundation Northwest Progressive Institute Fuse Washington Washington Bus YWCA of Pierce County YWCA of Olympia Gun violence prevention groups Brady Campaign Everytown for Gun Safety Americans for Responsible Solutions Seattle Brady Campaign The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Moms Rising States United NE Tacoma Neighbors For Gun Responsibility Ceasefire Washington Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Grandmothers Against Gun Violence Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Safe and Sane Skagit Safety Now Sandy Hook Promise Medical organizations American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington National Physicians Alliance, Washington Doctors for America, Washington Chapter Washington State Public Health Association King County Medical Society Religious organizations Faith Action Network Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle Temple De Hirsch Sinai National Council of Jewish Women Rabbis Against Gun Violence Jewish Family Service Kol HaNeshamah Kadima Reconstructionist Community Church Council of Greater Seattle Herzl Ner Tamid Conservative Congregation Congregation Beth Shalom Temple Beth Am Seattle Queen Anne United Methodist Church Sravasti Abbey Temple Beth Am United Methodist Church Temple De Hirsch Sinai Herzl-Ner Tamid Conservative Congregation Congregation Beth Shalom Kol Haneshamah Alki United Church of Christ First AME Church (Seattle) Trinity Parish Episcopal Church Immanuel Presbyterian Church The United Churches of Olympia Central Lutheran Church Bethel Congregational Church, United Church of Christ Madrona Grace Presbyterian Church Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church

Unions

• American Federation of Teachers, Washington

Arguments

Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s “Empower Families. Save Lives.” video.

Official arguments

Marilyn Balcerak, Stephanie Holten, Sheriff John Urquhart of King County, Regina Malveaux, CEO of the YWCA of Spokane, Ken Taylor, CEO of Valley Cities Behavioral Health Care, and former Washington Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote the official argument in support of Initiative 1491. Their argument was as follows:

Washington State has taken important steps to keep guns out of dangerous hands. But there are still gaps in our laws that make it hard to keep guns away from people threatening violence against themselves or others. We know that the majority of mass shooters and individuals who attempt suicide show signs of their intentions, but current law leaves families and law enforcement - often first to see those warning signs - unable to take life-saving action. Initiative 1491: Empower Families, Prevent Gun Violence Initiative 1491 empowers families and law enforcement to prevent tragedy -- giving them a chance to remove guns from a dangerous situation when they know someone is a threat to themselves or others. Parents of shooters at Isla Vista, Seattle’s Cafe Racer, and other tragedies have said they could have used this type of law to prevent senseless violence. Initiative 1491 would also expand protections that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Similar laws in other states have been shown to prevent some suicides. Initiative 1491: Respect Due Process Initiative 1491 closely follows existing process for other civil protection orders. Both parties may present evidence in court. A judge determines whether evidence of danger is sufficient and issues an order, effective for one year. There are criminal penalties for false petitions. Initiative 1491: Community Support Endorsed by Washington State Public Health Association, League of Women Voters, Faith Action Network, Everytown for Gun Safety, law enforcement, domestic violence experts, gun owners, and gun violence survivors.

Opposition

Know I-1491 led the campaign in opposition to Initiative 1491. David Combs initiated the opposition campaign.

Opponents

• National Rifle Association (NRA)
• Sen. Dean Takko (D-19)
• Rep. Matt Shea (R-4)

Arguments

Official arguments

David Combs, Linda Sherry, Sen. Dean Takko (D-19), Rep. Matt Shea (R-4), and Dave Workman wrote the argument against Initiative 1491 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

I-1491 Duplicates Existing Laws I-1491 disregards existing state laws that already require treatment and restriction of potentially dangerous individuals. I-1491 doesn’t require evaluation, treatment, or monitoring and does nothing to address underlying issues. Recently implemented laws actually provide early detection and intervention of persons at danger to themselves or others. Stigmatizes Mental Illness I-1491 associates mental illness with mass shootings and violent crime. Statistics show that only 3%-5% of violent acts are committed by people with serious mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. Violates Rights A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. The definition of “Extreme Risk” is unclear. A judge can issue an order based on arbitrary factors and reported behaviors including simply purchasing a gun legally. To be released from an order, a person must prove he/she is not a danger to themselves or others and pay for the tremendous cost of their own defense. Gives False Sense of Security There is no evidence that such orders reduce mass shootings and violent crime. Restrictions on firearm ownership should not be based on ideological agendas manipulating public fears and misconceptions about gun violence. I-1491 is a targeted, discriminatory abridgement of Second Amendment rights. Vote No!

Other positions

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington did not take an official position on Initiative 1491. However, the group did not support the initiative. In an e-mail from the ACLU to initiative sponsor David Combs, the organization stated:

“

... While keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose serious risks to safety is a reasonable public safety measure, the ACLU’s role is to evaluate such measures by their impact on civil liberties, and we have concerns that the initiative has inadequate due process procedures. Further, these deficient due process procedures could set a bad precedent for other criminal justice processes. 1.The initiative allows a broad and vaguely defined group of people (family, household member, police) to seek the protection order. A protection order can be issued based on vague criteria (“significant danger”) that a person is an “extreme risk.” The protection order can be obtained from a judge ex parte – without notice to the person being accused. This severely limits the ability of a person to challenge an order once it is entered. 2.The initiative puts the burden of proof on the accused to show, after 12 months, that the order should be lifted. It is unclear how persons would prove their lack of danger. The concerns are compounded because of problems we’ve seen with other kinds of protection orders in WA: Although they are initially temporary, after a period of time, there are efforts to expand the scope of the orders to make them permanent, or to further abridge the due process provisions. 3.The initiative requires recording the order in court databases, which are open to the public. A record showing that a person had gun rights taken away based on being an “extreme risk” may well haunt an individual for the rest of their life – regardless of rehabilitation – erecting barriers for them when they undergo a background check for employment, housing, etc.”

”

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$4,182,798.85
Opposition:	$0.00

As of January 12, 2017, there was one support committee and one opposition committee registered.

Support

One ballot measure campaign committee registered in support of Initiative 1491 as of January 12, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 12, 2017.

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Alliance for Gun Responsibility ERP Committee	$4,182,798.85	$4,000,443.52
Total	$4,182,798.85	$4,000,443.52

The following are the top five donors who contributed to the Alliance for Gun Responsibility Committee as of January 12, 2017:

Donor	Amount
Nicolas Hanauer	$790,000.00
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund	$550,000.00
Steve Ballmer	$500,000.00
Paul G. Allen	$250,000.00
Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC	$250,000.00

Opposition

One ballot measure campaign committee registered in opposition to Initiative 1491 as of January 12, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 12, 2017.

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Know I-1491 Sponsored by David Combs	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$0.00	$0.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• Tri-City Herald said: "Initiative 1491 was crafted to fill a gap in Washington’s broken mental health system, and help keep people deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing and acquiring firearms. Among its strongest supporters are families who have been torn apart because they lacked legal options when they saw signs that a loved one was heading toward a breakdown, yet were powerless to prevent them from buying or keeping guns. ... advocates are trying to piece together separate laws that can provide families new avenues of hope they didn’t have before. This initiative is one of them."
• Seattle Weekly said: "This is common-sense gun legislation… It’s a simple, and crucial, method for preventing some of the most preventable forms of gun violence—those caused by people who’ve already demonstrated clear signs of distress.”
• The Spokesman-Review said: "People who see warning signs of violence should have a way to head off tragedy. We support the initiative."
• The Stranger said: “It's painfully obvious that our elected officials need to tighten our gun laws. It's equally obvious that they're not going to do anything about it. So the Alliance for Gun Responsibility is addressing this problem by putting Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) on the ballot.”

Opposition

• HeraldNet‎ said: "Removing the threat that firearms pose to those with depression or other mental illness would appear to be a reasonable gun safety measure. But as addressed in Initiative 1491, the proposal to remove firearms from the possession of those deemed a threat to themselves and others, carries unintended consequences that could work against those suffering depression and mental illness and their families."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 64 percent of respondents in support of and 18 percent opposed to Initiative 1491. About 18 percent were undecided on the measure.
• KOMO News and Strategies 360 released a poll in early October 2016 showing support for Initiative 1491 at 78.6 percent. Opposition was around 17 percent.
• YouGov conducted a poll in mid-October 2016 and found 70 percent of respondents supporting Initiative 1491.

Note: YouGov pressed "undecided" respondents to select a position. Respondents were also allowed to skip the question. In the poll table below, "undecided" respondents are those who chose to skip the question.

• In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 67 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 18 percent. Undecided voters composed 15 percent of the sample.

Washington Initiative 1464 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016	67.0%	18.0%	15.0%	+/-4.5	502
YouGov 10/6/2016 - 10/13/2016	70.0%	29.0%	1.0%	+/-4.4	750
KOMO News/Strategies 360 9/29/2016 - 10/3/2016	78.6%	17.0%	4.4%	+/-4.4	500
Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2013	64.0%	18.0%	18.0%	+/-4.5	500
AVERAGES	69.9%	20.5%	9.6%	+/-4.45	563
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Voting on Firearms
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

See also: Firearms on the ballot

Prior to 2016, Washington had voted on ballot measures related to firearms four times, with the first being in 1997 and the most recent in 2014.

The 1997 ballot measure, known as Initiative 676, would have criminalized the transfer of any handgun not equipped with a trigger-lock and would have mandated the licensing of firearms. William H. Gates, the father of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, donated $150,000 towards the passage of Initiative 676. Bill and Melinda Gates also contributed $35,000 to the cause. The National Rifle Association, along with other gun rights groups, opposed the initiative. Voters defeated Initiative 676, with over 70 percent voting “No.”

In 2014, the Washington ballot featured two firearms-related ballot initiatives. Initiative 591 would have prevented the government from confiscating firearms without due process and implementing background checks unless a federal standard is established. Voters defeated this measure and opted to support implementing background checks with Initiative 594. Nearly 60 percent voted “Yes” on requiring background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. Supporters of Initiative 594 raised $11 million, while opponents received $603 thousand.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

• Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on February 18, 2016.
• 246,372 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
• Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
• Proponents turned in the required signatures for Initiative 1491 on July 7, 2016.
• On July 27, 2016, the secretary of state's office certified Initiative 1491 for the November 2016 election ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,365,074.90 was spent to collect the 246,372 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.54.

State profile

Demographic data for Washington
	Washington	U.S.
Total population:	7,160,290	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	66,456	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	77.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	3.6%	12.6%
Asian:	7.7%	5.1%
Native American:	1.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.6%	0.2%
Two or more:	5.2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.4%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	32.9%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,062	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	14.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington

Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Washington
• United States congressional delegations from Washington
• Public policy in Washington
• Influencers in Washington
• Washington fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Initiative 1491 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

2016

Firearms measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
California	California Proposition 63: Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban a

Past measures in Washington

• Washington Gun Rights Measure, Initiative 591 (2014) d
• Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Initiative 594 (2014) a
• Washington Handgun Trigger Locks, Initiative 676 (1997) d

See also

Suggest a link

• Washington 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Washington Legislature

External links

Basic information

• Initiative 1491
• Washington State Voter Guide 2016

Support

• Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility
• Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility Facebook
• Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility Twitter

Opposition

• Know I-1491
• Know I-1491 Facebook