Investments, inmate labor on ballot

Several amendments to the state constitution are on the fall ballot this year. One would set up a hard-to-tap state “rainy day fund” to save for hard times, another would make it easier for school districts to win voter approval of tax levies.

Here are a couple other little-noticed amendments voters will decide this year:

Senate Joint Resolution 8212 – Inmate Labor

What it would do: One of four proposed constitutional amendments that lawmakers put on the ballot this November, SJR 8212 was spawned by a 2004 ruling from the state Supreme Court. The court ruled that the state constitution banned the use of prison inmate labor by a company.

The ruling torpedoed the state’s efforts to have private companies set up manufacturing facilities in prisons, where inmates voluntarily worked to earn money and learn job skills.

The amendment requires, however, that such ventures do not unfairly compete with other Washington businesses.

The argument for it: Proponents, including the state Department of Corrections, say that inmates want to work and earn money. Research, they say, shows that skilled inmates are less likely to commit crimes when released and are more likely to find jobs and higher pay.

The argument against it: Two local lawmakers, Rep. Lynn Schindler, R-Otis Orchards, and Rep. Larry Crouse, R-Spokane, wrote the argument against the measure in the state voter’s guide. Although work can prepare felons for jobs after their release from prison, they say, this change threatens to take jobs from private workers. The prohibition against competition is too vague, they say.

House Joint Resolution 4215 – State investments

What it would do: Back in 1889, the federal government gave large swaths of land to the new state of Washington to provide cash for the state’s colleges. The profits from sales and leases of timber, mining, grazing and so forth are put into “permanent funds” managed and invested by the state investment board.

Proponents say these college funds have a brake on their investment potential: under a decades-old provision of the state constitution, they’re not allowed to invest in any private stocks or bonds. Starting in 1966, the state began lifting this restriction for its K-12 school money and other large state funds. But the restriction remains on the college funds.

The argument for it: The state investment board and colleges argue that with minimal risk, the state can likely earn much more money for colleges with the sort of diversified portfolio that’s become commonplace for mutual funds, pension plans and other investors.

The argument against it: No one testified against the change at legislative hearings this year. But in the state voter’s guide, state Reps. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, and Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, argue that the state money “should remain in stable investments that support families and communities, instead of gambling them in the stock market to create profits for stockbrokers.”