Washington has been down this road before.
In 2016, voters were presented with Initiative 1501, marketed as a commonsense measure to protect seniors from identity theft.
The emotional appeal was powerful. The substance was something else entirely.
The initiative rewrote Washington’s public records law, carving out a special exemption for certain publicly funded caregivers.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board labeled it “SEIU’s Ballot Fraud,” accusing the Service Employees International Union of trying to “hoodwink voters” by advertising the measure as protecting vulnerable individuals while its real effect was to prevent Medicaid funded homecare providers from learning their right to opt out of union dues.
The Seattle Times editorial board went even further, calling it a “Trojan horse” run by a deep pocketed special interest group that sought to weaken the state Public Records Act and manipulate voters with fears of identity theft.
The National Review similarly described it as an effort to keep union members in the dark. Ballotpedia summarized arguments highlighting the disconnect between the ballot framing and the statutory changes that followed.
History matters because the statutory language of Initiative 1501 did not stop with seniors.
Although marketed around identity theft protections for vulnerable adults, the initiative’s definition of “in-home caregivers” included publicly funded in-home childcare providers.
At the time, independent provider groups such as the Pacific Northwest Family In-home Childcare Association were attempting to build alternative networks and organizing models outside the existing union structure. Access to provider contact information through the Public Records Act had allowed outside organizations to communicate directly with licensed and subsidy participating providers.
After the new statutory restrictions took effect, independent groups no longer had access to provider contact lists through public records requests. The effect was to eliminate independent third-party access to provider contact information that had previously allowed outside review and direct communication with publicly funded in-home childcare providers.
I saw the risks firsthand.
Before these exemptions took effect, I went door to door visiting in-home childcare providers across Washington to inform them of their constitutional right to opt out of union membership.
Because public records identified the addresses of all in-home childcare providers, we could spot the red flags: homes that were abandoned, locations where no children were present, and operations that raised serious questions about compliance.
Those discoveries were possible only because records were accessible to the public.
When those concerns were raised, the system did not respond with reform. It responded by closing the door.
Proponents argue that in-home childcare providers deserve special protection. But Washington does not apply that standard consistently.
Teachers, firefighters, and other public employees funded by taxpayers remain subject to public records law. In-home childcare providers were as well, until the new statutory restrictions took effect.
Transparency did not narrow because the system became flawless. It narrowed after outside scrutiny intensified.
The consequences of that approach are now visible elsewhere.
Minnesota is grappling with a major publicly funded in-home childcare and nutrition fraud scandal, involving hundreds of millions of dollars and widespread breakdowns in oversight.
Washington’s system is not identical. But Minnesota demonstrates what can happen when oversight mechanisms weaken and independent scrutiny is limited.
There is also a civil liberties concern that deserves attention. In-home childcare providers were unionized through government action, not through ordinary workplace organizing. After the state created the bargaining unit and certified an exclusive representative, access to the very provider contact information that had historically allowed independent outreach was restricted.
The practical effect was to make it far harder for providers to organize a competing association, communicate with one another at scale, or even hear from independent third parties about their options regarding union representation and dues. When the government helps create exclusive representation and then limits the information needed to challenge it, informed consent is no longer a meaningful safeguard.
Transparency forces the questions that responsible government should welcome:
1. Who benefits from these exemptions?
2. Who is getting paid, and for what?
3. Are public funds flowing into organizations that engage in political advocacy or electioneering?
4. Are the officials who oversee these systems insulated from scrutiny while simultaneously benefiting financially or politically from the structures they control?
These are not accusations. They are the basic questions democratic accountability requires.
This is not an argument against unions. It is an argument against secrecy.
Public money demands public accountability. Washington was warned once before by outlets including the Seattle Times itself that carving exceptions into public records law would have consequences.
Minnesota is now living with them. The question is whether Washington will reconsider before it needs its own reckoning.
Matthew Hayward is Director of Strategic Outreach at the Freedom Foundation.
