VANCOUVER, Wash. — November 5, 2026
Clark County voters are supporting eight of nine proposed amendments to the county's Home Rule Charter, according to unofficial election results released Wednesday, November 4.
The charter is the county's governing document. It establishes the responsibilities of local officials, defines the structure of county government and sets rules for exercising public authority.
Unlike ordinary council decisions, amendments to the charter must be approved by voters.
The nine proposals were developed by Clark County's 15-member Charter Review Commission.
The proposals address issues ranging from elected officials' term limits and county taxes to budget transparency, housing regulations and independent reviews of county programs.
WE PNW examined the proposed amendments and the latest available election returns to explain what the measures would change and how they could affect residents across Clark County.
The Results: Eight Measures Ahead, One Trailing
According to Clark County's second unofficial election report, released November 4 at approximately 5:05 p.m., the results were:
| Amendment | Proposed change | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| No. 19 | Term limits for County Council members | 82.18% |
| No. 20 | Earlier budget preparation and public review | 72.14% |
| No. 21 | Expanded council nomination powers for boards and commissions | 69.09% |
| No. 22 | Clarification of nonpartisan election procedures | 62.13% |
| No. 23 | Required annual county manager report | 86.55% |
| No. 24 | Housing impact analysis for certain county ordinances | 65.27% |
| No. 25 | Two-thirds council approval for certain tax decisions | 61.65% |
| No. 26 | Changes to citizen initiatives and referendums | 40.94% |
| No. 27 | Independent performance audits of county programs | 61.50% |
These percentages are preliminary and may change as additional ballots are processed.
Amendment 19: Term Limits for County Council Members
Yes: 82.18%.
Amendment 19 would limit County Council members to three consecutive terms.
After serving three consecutive terms, a councilor would need to remain out of office for one complete four-year term before becoming eligible to serve again.
Previous consecutive service would count toward the limit. Serving more than half of a term would count as a full term.
The measure would not create a lifetime ban on serving on the County Council.
Instead, it would restrict uninterrupted service while allowing former members to return after the required break.
Official Amendment 19 explanation.
Amendment 20: More Time for Public Budget Review
Yes: 72.14%.
Amendment 20 would revise the county's annual budget calendar.
Under the proposed process, preliminary budget information would be made available earlier in the year, giving residents and elected officials additional time to review spending plans before final adoption.
It also requires public meetings before the budget is approved.
For residents, the practical significance is earlier access to information about proposed expenditures, public services and financial priorities.
Official Amendment 20 explanation.
Amendment 21: Expanded Council Authority Over Appointments
Yes: 69.09%.
The proposal would expand the County Council's authority to nominate candidates for county boards and commissions.
Council members would share nomination authority with the county manager across county boards and commissions, except the Ethics Review Commission.
This would change how candidates are brought forward for appointment.
It would not turn those positions into directly elected offices.
The measure concerns the balance of responsibilities between the county's legislative and administrative leadership.
Amendment 22: Clarifying Nonpartisan Elections
Yes: 62.13%.
Amendment 22 would clarify election procedures for nonpartisan county offices and align the charter with applicable Washington state election law.
Under state procedures, a nonpartisan race with two or fewer candidates generally proceeds directly to the general election without a separate primary.
The proposal is primarily procedural.
It does not make those offices partisan or change their fundamental responsibilities.
Amendment 23: An Annual Public Report From the County Manager
Yes: 86.55%.
Amendment 23 received the highest percentage of support among the nine proposals in the second unofficial count.
It would require the county manager to prepare and broadly publish an annual report addressing the county's financial and governmental affairs.
The report would provide residents with a regular source of information about county operations and finances.
The proposal makes annual reporting a formal charter requirement.
Its effectiveness would ultimately depend on the completeness of the information presented and the degree of public scrutiny.
Amendment 24: Housing Impact Analysis
Yes: 65.27%.
Amendment 24 would require the county to publish a Housing Impact Analysis before adopting certain ordinances reasonably likely to have a direct and material effect on residential development.
The analysis would examine potential consequences for housing capacity, development density, land availability, permitting, subdivision requirements, parking rules and construction costs.
The requirement would apply to discretionary county-initiated ordinances. Ministerial updates required by state law would be excluded.
The proposal is intended to make housing-related consequences more visible before county officials adopt new regulations.
An important practical question is how the additional analysis would affect administrative costs and the time required to adopt ordinances.
The amendment does not automatically approve or reject housing developments.
Official Amendment 24 explanation.
Amendment 25: A Higher Voting Threshold for Certain County Taxes
Yes: 61.65%.
Amendment 25 would require a two-thirds affirmative vote of the County Council to approve certain new council-imposed taxes or increases to them.
Clark County has five council members. A two-thirds requirement would mean that at least four members must vote in favor.
That is a higher threshold than a simple majority of three.
Two separate percentages are important here.
The 61.65% figure is the preliminary share of voters supporting Amendment 25.
The two-thirds requirement would apply to future votes by County Council members on the tax decisions covered by the amendment.
The proposal does not automatically apply to all county fees, charges or voter-approved taxes.
If approved, the amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
The higher threshold could make some future tax increases more difficult to adopt. Its effects on county programs would depend on future budget needs and council decisions.
Official Amendment 25 materials.
Amendment 26: The Only Proposal Trailing
Yes: 40.94%. No: 59.06%.
Amendment 26 proposed several changes to the process for citizen initiatives, mini-initiatives and referendums.
The changes included reducing the signature requirement for certain measures from 10% to 8%, revising signature calculation rules for unincorporated areas, allowing some initiatives with insufficient signatures to potentially proceed as mini-initiatives and permitting limited statistical sampling for signature verification.
Supporters of a lower signature threshold may see it as a way to make citizen participation more accessible.
At the same time, the proposal would alter signature verification and election administration procedures.
In the unofficial results, a majority of voters rejected the amendment.
If that result holds, the existing charter rules will remain in place.
Official Amendment 26 explanation.
Amendment 27: Independent Audits of County Programs
Yes: 61.50%.
Amendment 27 would authorize the County Council to conduct or commission performance audits of county programs and operations.
It would also require the council to establish an independent auditing process within the county's legislative branch.
Qualified external contractors could conduct audits using accepted government auditing standards.
The proposal focuses on program efficiency and effectiveness, rather than financial accounting alone.
Existing annual state-required audits would continue.
A performance audit can examine whether a government program is meeting its objectives and using resources efficiently.
However, the proposal itself does not establish that any particular county department or program is currently operating improperly.
Official Amendment 27 explanation.
When Would the Amendments Take Effect?
Clark County Elections reported that approximately 49,000 ballots remained to be counted as of 5 p.m. November 4.
The county is scheduled to certify the November 3 election results on November 24, 2026.
Under Section 9.3 of Clark County's Home Rule Charter, amendments approved by a majority of voters generally become effective ten calendar days after certification unless a later date is specified.
That means most approved amendments could take effect in December.
Amendment 25, which concerns county tax decisions, specifies January 1, 2027, as its effective date.
Until certification is complete, the reported outcomes remain unofficial.
What the Results Mean for Clark County Residents
Taken together, the proposals would change several important rules governing the county.
They address how long elected council members can serve consecutively, when the public receives budget information, how certain tax increases are approved and how the performance of county programs can be reviewed.
The housing impact measure could influence the preparation of future county ordinances, while the reporting and audit provisions could expand access to information about government operations.
The practical consequences will depend on how the county implements the new requirements and on future decisions by its elected officials.
WE PNW will continue monitoring the count and the certification scheduled for November 24.
WE PNW
November 5, 2026. All election figures are unofficial unless otherwise indicated.
