2026 Clark County Charter Review Amendment Voter Guide

This November, Clark County voters are being asked to decide on 9 proposed amendments to the County Charter, which will appear on the ballot as Amendments 19 through 27. These amendments range from minor housekeeping updates to significant changes in how our county government operates.

At Future 42 Clark County, our mission is to turn frustration into action and empower citizens to build a stronger future. We believe government should be accountable, transparent, and focused on policies that make our county and state safer, more affordable, and a place where families and businesses can thrive. That’s why we’re providing this overview, not to tell you how to vote on every amendment, but to give you clear information you can use to make your own informed decisions.

What is the County Charter?

The Clark County Charter is the foundation of our local government, essentially, the county’s own constitution. Adopted by voters in 2014, it establishes how county government is structured, defines the powers and responsibilities of elected officials, and outlines how laws and county budgets are created and implemented. The Charter also gives residents a direct voice in shaping government through initiatives, referendums, and charter amendments. Unlike ordinary laws, which can be changed by the County Council, any change to the Charter must be approved by voters. It’s one of the most important tools citizens have to hold local government accountable and ensure it reflects the community’s values.

How are Charter Amendments Proposed?

Every five years, Clark County voters elect a 15-member Charter Review Commission, made up of three elected commissioners from each of the county’s five districts. This commission, whose members were elected by voters in 2025, studied the Charter and recommended amendments to place on the ballot.

This year, the Clark County Charter Commission reviewed over 40 amendments and advanced 9 to be decided by voters this fall. Below is a summary of each amendment, along with the text that appears on your ballot and Future 42’s recommendation on each measure.

A Look at the Amendments

The following summaries are based on a combination of information from the official ballot titles, explanatory statements, and pro/con statements submitted to the Clark County Auditor, along with additional context and clarifications provided by Future 42.

Amendment No. 19 – Concerning a Limitation on Consecutive Terms for County Council Members

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-20 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning a limitation on consecutive terms for County Council members. If approved, this amendment would limit the number of consecutive terms a County Council member could sit to three terms.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes adding a new charter section limiting County Council members to three consecutive terms, with eligibility restored after one full term out of office. All consecutive service, including prior service, counts toward the limit, and serving more than half a term is treated as a full term. Supporters say Clark County currently has no term limits for County Councilmembers, and Amendment 19 would provide regular opportunities for new leadership by limiting members to three consecutive terms. Opponents say voters should be able to reelect Councilmembers as many times as they choose and that term limits could force experienced officials out of office.
• Future 42 Position: Support. Three consecutive terms gives Council members ample time to serve while ensuring opportunities for new leadership and fresh perspectives. Term limits help prevent political entrenchment while still allowing experienced former Council members to return after spending a term out of office.

Amendment No. 20 – Concerning a Revised Budget Transparency Process

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-10 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning a revised budget transparency process. If approved, this amendment would establish a new timeline for the submission of budget information, presentation, and adoption of the Clark County budget earlier than those dates set in Chapter 36.40 RCW.
• Summary: Clark County’s Charter Review Commission proposes to improve budget transparency and public participation by revising the county’s annual budget timeline. The amendment establishes earlier deadlines for departments to submit budget estimates, requires the County Manager to provide preliminary budget information to the Council and the public, and mandates public meetings before final budget adoption. The revised process aims to ensure clearer financial planning, more time for review, and greater community involvement. Supporters say moving the budget process earlier would give the Council and public more time to review the County Manager’s proposed budget, rather than considering it during the holiday season when public engagement is often low. Opponents say the County can already change its budget procedures without amending the Charter, and setting specific deadlines in the Charter could unnecessarily limit flexibility.
• Future 42 Position: Support. A positive reform that encourages transparency, public engagement, and collaboration between the County Manager and the Council by moving budget deadlines back and requiring earlier meetings to inform and engage the public and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.

Amendment No. 21 – Concerning Revised Council Powers Regarding Boards and Commissions

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-23 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning revised Council powers regarding boards and commissions. If approved, this amendment would give the County Council the concurrent authority with the County Manager to nominate members to all boards and commissions, with the exception of the Ethics Review Commission.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes an expansion of the County Council’s authority to concurrently nominate members to certain boards and commissions—excluding the Ethics Review Commission. The amendment revises Section 2.4.H of the Home Rule Charter to allow the council to share nomination power with the County Manager, while retaining final appointment authority. Supporters say the County Manager currently has sole authority to nominate members to most County boards and commissions, while Amendment 21 would give County Councilmembers concurrent nomination authority and broaden who can help recruit residents to serve. No formal opposition statement was submitted.
• Future 42 Position: Support. Allowing both the County Council and County Manager to nominate members provides another avenue for qualified residents to serve on county boards and commissions while preserving the Council’s existing authority to make final appointments.

Amendment No. 22 – Concerning a Clarification of Nonpartisan Office Elections

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 26-01 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning a clarification of nonpartisan office elections. If approved, this amendment clarifies if two or less county candidates file for a race in the Primary, that race will bypass the Primary and proceed directly to the General Election. Nonpartisan elections for county offices shall be held in accordance with the procedures established in state law for nonpartisan elections and shall occur in even-numbered years.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes to clarify that several county offices—including Council members, Assessor, Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, Treasurer, and Prosecuting Attorney—remain nonpartisan. The amendment requires these positions to follow procedures for nonpartisan elections under state law and mandates that both primary and general elections occur in even-numbered years. Supporters say Clark County offices are currently nonpartisan, but current Charter language still requires them to follow partisan election procedures, meaning even races with only one or two candidates appear on the primary ballot. Amendment 22 would use standard nonpartisan procedures, sending races with two or fewer candidates directly to the general election. Opponents say the primary gives voters more time to evaluate candidates and provides useful information about voter preferences before the general election, even when only one or two candidates are running.
• Future 42 Position: Neutral. Amendment 22 eliminates two-candidate primaries that cost taxpayers money without narrowing the field. However, doing so also eliminates a campaign-finance reporting period, reducing information available to voters earlier in the election. Voters should weigh those savings against the loss of transparency.

Amendment No. 23 – Concerning a Required Annual Report Publication by the County Manager

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-24 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning a required annual report publication by the County Manager. If approved, the amendment would require the County Manager to present to the Council in a public meeting and publish broadly an annual statement of the County’s fiscal and government affairs, and any other report which the Council may deem necessary as well as annually prepare and present to the Council in a public meeting a budget and budget message setting forth the proposals for the forthcoming fiscal year.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes requiring the County Manager to prepare and broadly publish an annual statement of the county’s fiscal and governmental affairs. This changes the report from optional to mandatory and ensures public accessibility. The amendment also reaffirms existing duties, including presenting the annual budget in a public meeting. Supporters say the Charter currently says the County Manager may present an annual report on the County’s fiscal and governmental affairs. Amendment 23 would change that “may” to a requirement, ensuring residents receive a public annual report on County finances, accomplishments, and challenges and improving transparency and accountability. Opponents say the broad publication requirement could create unnecessary costs and potentially allow taxpayer-funded reports to influence elections involving County officials or ballot measures.
• Future 42 Position: Neutral. A small technical change that boosts transparency by simply changing a “may” to a “shall” to require that the county manager shall publish broadly an annual statement of the county’s fiscal and governmental affairs.

Amendment No. 24 – Concerning a Requirement for a Housing Impact Analysis

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-07 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning a requirement for a Housing Impact Analysis. If approved, this amendment would require prior to the adoption of any ordinance reasonably likely to have a direct and material impact upon residential housing capacity, density, permitting, subdivision requirements, parking requirements, applicable to residential development, or residential construction costs, the County shall publish a Housing Impact Analysis.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes requiring a Housing Impact Analysis before adopting any ordinance that could affect housing capacity, development rules, or construction costs. The analysis must evaluate impacts on housing supply, land availability, permitting efficiency, and production costs, using accepted planning or economic methods. It applies only to county ordinances proposed by the county council, excluding ministerial updates required by state law. Supporters say requiring a Housing Impact Analysis before major County-initiated housing and land-use regulations are adopted would give officials and the public better information about potential effects on housing costs and supply and help avoid unintended consequences. Opponents say the requirement belongs in the policy process rather than the Charter, could add costs and bureaucracy, and would do little by itself to address housing affordability.
• Future 42 Position: Support. No single reform will solve Clark County’s housing challenges, but better decisions start with better information. Requiring policymakers to consider how major regulations affect housing costs and supply can help prevent unintended consequences for working families, homebuilders, and their employees.

Amendment No. 25 – Concerning the Requirement of Supermajority Approval by Council for County Taxes

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-08 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning the requirement of supermajority approval by Council for County taxes. If approved, after January 1, 2027, this amendment would require any new councilmanic tax assessed, levied, or increased to have a two-third affirmative vote by the Council. Also, if approved, this amendment would not apply to fees, rates and charges, special assessments, or existing taxes levied prior to adoption of the amendment or any renewal or reauthorization of those taxes not seeking an increased tax rate.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of the County Council to approve any new councilmanic tax or increase to such a tax beginning January 1, 2027. Currently, these taxes can be approved by a simple majority of the County Council. The measure aims to strengthen fiscal oversight and limit tax increases without broad council support. Supporters say requiring a two-thirds Council vote for new or increased councilmanic taxes would require broader agreement before taxes are raised and provide greater protection and predictability for taxpayers. Opponents say new councilmanic taxes currently require only a simple majority of the County Council, and argue that requiring a two-thirds vote would give a minority of Councilmembers the power to block needed revenue, potentially making it harder to fund public safety and other County services
• Future 42 Position: Support. Tax increases deserve broader voter support and transparency. Requiring a two-thirds Council vote for new or increased councilmanic taxes provides taxpayers an additional safeguard and encourages the Council to build broader agreement before asking Clark County residents to pay more.

Amendment No. 26 – Concerning the Initiative, Mini-Initiative, and Referenda Process

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-40 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning the initiative, mini-initiative, and referenda process. If approved, this amendment would reduce the number of signatures necessary for initiatives and referendums; remove calculation requirements of required signatures based on the number of votes cast within incorporated areas of the County at the date the initiative and referendum is initiated; allow for initiatives without sufficient signatures have possible opportunity to become a mini-initiative; and permit the Auditor’s Office to limited use statistical sampling techniques for signature verification.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes to revise Article 7 of the Home Rule Charter, lowering signature requirements for initiatives and referenda from 10% to 8% and allowing insufficient initiative signatures to qualify as mini-initiatives (A citizen petition requiring fewer signatures that goes first to the County Council for consideration rather than directly to the ballot.). The amendment standardizes signature calculations for measures affecting unincorporated areas and permits the County Auditor to use statistical sampling for signature verification. It also updates procedures for initiative, mini-initiative, and referendum filings while retaining recall provisions. Supporters say lowering the signature threshold from 10 percent to 8 percent and making other petition reforms would make the initiative and referendum process more accessible while retaining safeguards to demonstrate meaningful public support. Opponents say voters rejected a similar threshold reduction in 2022 and argue that lowering the requirement and allowing statistical sampling of signatures could weaken election safeguards.
• Future 42 Position: Support. Clark County’s Home Rule Charter gives citizens a direct voice through initiative and referendum, but the current signature threshold has proven difficult to meet. No citizen initiative has qualified for the ballot since the Charter was adopted in 2014. Reducing signature requirements and allowing initiatives to qualify as mini-initiatives would make these existing rights more accessible and give residents a more practical way to bring issues before elected officials and voters.

Amendment No. 27 – Concerning Legislative Branch Performance Audits

• Ballot Text: The Clark County Charter Review Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-14 proposing an amendment to the Clark County Home Rule Charter, concerning legislative branch performance audits. If approved, the amendment would permit the County Council to conduct, or cause to be conducted, performance and program audits to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs and operations of the County. Also, if approved, this amendment would require the County Council to establish by ordinance within the legislative branch an independent county auditing process.
• Summary: The Clark County Charter Review Commission proposes to authorize the County Council to initiate independent performance audits of county programs and operations. The amendment creates new Charter Sections 2.7 and 2.8, establishing an auditing process aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and responsible stewardship of public resources. Audits may be conducted by qualified independent contractors using generally accepted government auditing standards. Annual state-mandated audits will continue unchanged. Supporters say giving the County Council authority to initiate independent performance audits would strengthen oversight, identify inefficiencies, and help ensure taxpayer dollars and County programs are managed effectively. While opponents say Councilmembers and residents can already request audits, the amendment would go further by requiring independent performance audits rather than relying on requests. Opponents also argue these required audits could duplicate existing processes and create unnecessary taxpayer expense.
• Future 42 Position: Support. Audits promote transparency and efficiency by identifying waste, improving government services, and helping ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively. Giving the County Council direct authority to initiate performance audits strengthens its ability to oversee the government it funds.

Where Future 42 Stands

Some of this year’s Charter amendments are relatively modest changes, while others would make more significant changes to how Clark County government operates, how taxes are approved, and how citizens participate in the legislative process.

Why We Support Proposed Charter Amendments 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 27

• Proposed Charter Amendment 19 (Term Limits): No elected official should become permanently entrenched in office. Three consecutive terms gives Council members ample time to serve and gain experience while ensuring opportunities for new leadership. After sitting out one full term, former Council members would remain free to run again.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 20 (Budget Transparency): Taxpayers deserve enough time to understand how their money will be spent before the county budget is adopted. Moving key deadlines earlier gives the Council and public more opportunity to review spending plans, ask questions, and participate before final decisions are made.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 21 (Boards and Commissions): Allows County Councilmembers to nominate residents to most County boards and commissions, a power currently held primarily by the County Manager.  The Council would continue making the final appointments.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 24 (Housing Impact Analysis): Housing policy should be based on evidence and understanding, not guesswork. Before adopting certain county-initiated policies affecting housing, this amendment requires the County to examine potential impacts on housing supply, land availability, permitting, and construction costs. Better information can help policymakers avoid unintended consequences that make housing more expensive.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 25 (Tax Supermajority): Tax increases deserve broader support. Requiring a two-thirds Council vote for new or increased councilmanic taxes provides taxpayers an additional safeguard and encourages elected officials to build broader agreement before asking Clark County residents to pay more.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 26 (Initiative, Mini-Initiative, and Referendum): Citizen participation was an important part of Clark County’s transition to home rule government. Initiative and referendum give residents a direct voice in county decisions. Lowering signature requirements and allowing initiative signatures to potentially count toward a mini-initiative (lower-signature petitions sent first to the County Council) makes these tools more accessible to ordinary citizens seeking to bring an issue before their elected officials or fellow voters.
• Proposed Charter Amendment 27 (Performance Audits): Effective government requires more than tracking how much money is spent. Performance audits can examine whether county programs are actually achieving results, identify inefficiencies, and highlight opportunities to improve services. Establishing an independent auditing process gives the County Council another tool to hold county government accountable.

Why County Charter Review Commission Elections Matter

Notably, Future 42 Clark County does not oppose any of the nine amendments advanced by the Clark County Charter Review Commission this year which underscores just how consequential Charter Review Commission member elections can be. These commissions have the power to place changes to a county’s foundational governing document directly before voters, influencing everything from taxes and elections to government accountability and citizen participation.

The 15-member Charter Review Commission considered a wide range of proposed changes to the County Charter. Commissioners Patrick Adigwame, Brad Benton, Liz Cline, Ann Donnelly, Brandon Erickson, Cathie Garber, Kim Hamlik, Duncan Hoss, John Jay, and Peter Silliman deserve recognition for advancing and supporting the reforms highlighted here, focused on accountability, transparency, affordability, and citizen involvement.

The experience of other counties, including Pierce County’s contentious 2026 Charter Review process, also demonstrates how differently these commissions can approach their considerable authority. Who serves matters, and voters should pay close attention when Charter Review Commission seats appear on the ballot.

Clark County’s Commission also differs from many others because commissioners serve two-year terms. The nine amendments headed to voters in November therefore represent only the first year of its work. With another year remaining, Clark County residents should expect more proposals and continued debate over the future of county government in 2027.