Category Archives: Elections

Five GMO Labelling Opponents Dump in Over $11 Million Against I-522

Posted on September 17th, 2013 | Comments Off on Five GMO Labelling Opponents Dump in Over $11 Million Against I-522

Opponents to Initiative 522 – No on 522 -to require GMO labeling on foods have dumped in over $11 million so far against the measure. Here is the complete list  of the  five total contributors to date:

Monsanto, St Louis, MO  $4,592,255

Dupont Pioneer,  Johnston, IA   $3,420,159

Grocery Manufactor’s Assoc, Washington, DC  $2,322,500

Bayer Cropscience, Research Triangle PK, NC  $591,664

Dow Agrosciences,  Indianapolis, IN  $29,531

The No on 522 campaign launched their TV campaign  on Sept 17, 2013   press release

 

Proponents of I-532, the Yes on 522 committee , has raised some $3,609.933  from some 3160 contributors.  The largest contributors to date for $25,000 or more are:

Dr Bonner’s Magic Soaps, Escondidia, CA   $950,000

Organic Consumer Fund, Seattle  $480,000

Mercola.com Health Resources LLC, Hoffman Estates, IL  $200,000

Presence Marketing Inc, Barrington, IL $200,000

Nature Path Foods USA, Inc, Blaine WA $150,000

Center for Food Safety Action Fund, Washington, DC $100,000

PCC Natural Foods, Seattle, WA $100,000

Annies, Inc, Berkeley, CA $50,000

Food Democracy Now, Clear Lake, IA  $50,000

Mark D Squire, Fairfax, CA  $50,000

GFA Brands, Inc, Paramus, NJ  $50,000

William T Weiland, Schaumburg, IL  $50,000

The yes on 522 ads began on September 16, 2013 – press release

Yes on 522 ad – Right

Yes on 522 ad – Washingtonians

 

Data for No and yes campaigns from reports to www.pdc.wa.gov

 

Comments Off on Five GMO Labelling Opponents Dump in Over $11 Million Against I-522

Posted in campaign finance, Elections, Environment, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , ,

McGinn and Murray lead in fundraising in Seattle Mayor’s Race

Posted on July 13th, 2013 | Comments Off on McGinn and Murray lead in fundraising in Seattle Mayor’s Race

Fundraising through June 2013 for the Seattle Mayor’s race finds incumbent Mayor Michael McGinn in the lead followed closely by 43rd LD Senator Ed Murray. In third place was Councilmember Bruce Harrell followed by businessman Charles Staedecker.  Former Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck came in fifth. Two women in the race Joey Gray and Kate Martin trailed far behind. Two candidates, Mary Martin and Doug McQuaid reported raising no money.

While money is not always a deciding factor, as Michael McGinn showed in beating Joe Mallahan 4 years ago, it makes it a lot easier to compete and reach voters.

Here are the latest figures from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s website for the candidates in alphabetical order:

Joey Gray raised $7819, spent $3009, debt $2293     -22 contributors

Bruce Harrell raised $232,809, spent $126,121 debt $ 26,780     – 971 contributors

Kate Martin raised $4556, spent $4064       – 34 contributors

Michael McGinn raised $258,032, spent $92,238, debt $9178      – 1382 contributors

Ed Murray raised $253,235, spent $126,121, debt $13,195        – 1109 contributors

Peter Steinbrueck  raised $135,402, spent $49,988        – 901 contributions

Charles Staedecker raised $192,616, spent $113,012      – 901 contributions

 

Tim Burgess, before he dropped out, raised $246,077 from 932 contributions and money wise would still have been in the thick of the race based on money raised.

The August 6th 2013 Primary Election is  less than a month away.  Ballots are soon being mailed out and the field will be narrowed to the top two candidates for the November 5th 2013 General Election.

Comments Off on McGinn and Murray lead in fundraising in Seattle Mayor’s Race

Posted in Elections

Tagged , ,

Tim Eyman’s Attack on Free Speech with Initiative 517

Posted on June 25th, 2013 | Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Attack on Free Speech with Initiative 517

Initiative 517 is a Tim Eyman initiative that is on the November 2013 ballot in Washington State.  It is a measure to promote Tim Eyman’s  business – which is making a living off of putting conservative libertarian measures on the ballot.  In this case Eyman wants to create a 25 foot signature gathering zone around petitioners where people can not speak out and oppose his business. It is a direct infringement on the free speech rights of citizens, violating the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Jason Mercier of the conservative “free market” Washington Policy Center writes about Initiative 517 in today’s Thedailyworld.com under a headline of “Heavy hitters line up against I-517“. Mercier in his opinion piece brushes aside some of the concerns about Eyman’s self serving initiative as non-controversial.  That is not the reality.

This measure is not as uncontroversial as Jason Mercier suggests. One of Eyman’s provisions is to create a 25 foot no harassment zone around signature gatherers.  There are already penalties for harassment that work just fine. I-517 tries to go much further by shutting down free speech activities around petition gatherers.

Eyman’s measure infringes on 1st amendment rights by setting up a 25 zone around petitioners saying that certain activity can result in disorderly conduct charges including activity that is “…intimidating, or maintaining an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet of any person gathering signatures”.  To most petitioners someone standing 5 feet away and carrying a sign saying “do not sign this measure” or merely saying out loud that citizens should read the measure before signing it causes petitioners to say they are being harassed.

This measure is an attempt to shut down public discourse and dialogue in  public places and silence those opposing Eyman’s measures.  This violates 1st amendment free speech rights and goes too far.  Eyman wants a free pass to collect signatures without anyone questioning him.  Trying to silence those that dissent peacefully with others is what you would expect in a totalitarian society, but not in America.

We will publish more of our concerns about Initiative 517 over the next few months but believe it goes too far.  The public strongly supply the initiative process in Washington State and it has been used by both right and left leaning groups in pushing Washington policy and law. But there is a balancing act necessary to protect rights of both supporters and opponents of specific initiative measures in the public arena.

Initiative 517 is a “solution” looking for a problem and there isn’t one in this case. Eyman has not had a problem getting initiatives on the ballot and neither have others, especially if they have money. This measure would make it easier for Eyman to get more of his measures on the ballot and that is why he is pushing it.

For progressives thinking this will make it easier for them to get measures on the ballot, the downside is that they will also have to spend more time fighting more conservative measures put on the ballot by Eyman, including those at the local level. It’s already hard enough to fight an Eyman measure year after year.  Think what it will be like with two or three Eyman measures on the ballot each year and 4 or 5 others at the same time at the local level.

We elect a Legislature to do the people’s business after public hearings and review.  While initiatives are a healthy outlet  for the public to act when the legislature doesn’t, running our state more and more by initiative puts the process of making our state laws up for sale to the highest bidder.

Unfortunately the highest bidder is usually corporate and special interests that can afford to spend millions to get their message out to the voting public.

 

 


							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Attack on Free Speech with Initiative 517

									

						Posted in Elections, Initiatives					

													

						Tagged , , , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State


			

				Posted on June 17th, 2013 | Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State
			


				

				
Tim Eyman’s political philosophy for Washington State is libertarian at heart. The problem is that the libertarian vision is no vision at all. Libertarians argue for a minimalist government and this is Tim Eyman’s approach on his initiatives. If one asks who is Tim Eyman most like in his ideas, both Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand come to mind.  There is seemingly no end point in how small government should be or how minimal taxes should be.


As E J Dionne wrote recently in the Washington Post  Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel is that there is currently no country in the world that is libertarian run. That in itself should give voters pause as they blindly follow Eyman. It is a dead end for our state as education funding and other vital state functions get reduced and reduced until it’s only everyone for themselves.


Thinking about what Eyman’s approach leads to comes to mind because of an article I came across written by Andy Garber of the Seattle Times right before last year’s elections. Eyman’s two thirds vote requirement for the Washington State Legislature had not yet been overturned by the Washington State Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The  article was entitled “State ballots’ new twist: tax advisory votes“.


The article noted that Eyman’s Initiative 960 and and I-1185 on that November’s ballot not only required a 2/3 vote by the legislature to pass taxes but also added a” nonbinding public advisory vote” when lawmakers approved any tax increase no matter by what margin of votes or whose taxes were affected.


By Eyman’s definition repealing a tax loophole was a tax increase, even if the loophole provided no public benefit and transferred tax obligations to others.   In reality tax loopholes are tax expenditures – off budget spending of tax revenue to benefit a special interest or business but without the regular in depth scrutiny other state expenditures get during the regular biennial budget process. And with Eyman all taxes need to be opposed as runaway spending regardless of who pays or for what purpose.


Looking at the two advisory votes on the November 2012 ballot placed there as a result of Eyman’s I-960 and the response by Eyman as to what these votes meant points out the absurdity of Eyman’s libertarian slash taxes in all cases approach to dealing with public issues.


Here is the wording of advisory vote No 2 as set up by Tim Eyman’s language in Initiative 960.


The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, expiration of a tax on possession of petroleum products and reduced the tax rate, costing $24,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.

 This tax increase should be:


[  ]  Repealed


[  ]  Maintained


The voting public got no further explanation than the ballot title in the voter’s pamphlet, unlike initiatives and referendum which have an explanatory statement, a fiscal impact statement (not a 10 year cost projection) and no arguments for or against.


In addition the attorney general had no real ability to explain the issue in the ballot title since Eyman’s initiative 960 required that the ballot tile be written as:


The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, (identification of tax and description of increase), costing (most up-to-date ten-year cost projection, expressed in dollars and rounded to the nearest million) in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:

Repealed . . .[ ]

Maintained . . .[ ]‰


I have made bold  the mandatory wording required which by themselves are  intended to encourage people to vote to repeal any “tax increase”.


In the advisory vote No 2, voters voted  “to repeal” this “tax increase” by a vote of 55% to 45%. No campaign was run to urge voters to maintain the “tax increase” because it was only an advisory vote. If one had been run voters might have gotten more information on what this bill really did. The bill SHB 2590 passed the House by 93 yeas, 1 nay and 4 excused.  It passed the Senate by 40 yeas, 0 nays and 9 excused. It was supported by the Washington Oil Marketers Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.


In reality the “petroleum tax” was really an insurance program that particularly benefited all homeowners with underground oil storage tanks from liability caused by oil leaking from a tank. Cleanup fees from leaking oil pollution could easily exceed $10,000 to $20,000 in liability plus contaminated water problems. This was not a controversial bill and easily exceeded the then 2/3 vote requirement imposed by Eyman to raise taxes.


Yet Eyman’s myopic libertarian philosophy says all taxes are bad and should be opposed. His push poll style ballot title wording contributed to voters voting against “tax increases” even when those increases benefited taxpayers. That’s because for Eyman the issue isn’t about good government or responsible government. It’s about the least government possible.


Eyman’s response before the election according to Andrew Garber’s article was:


“Eyman said that if voters reject the taxes approved by lawmakers, he hopes the Legislature would repeal them.”    


The second advisory vote on the ballot was to repeal a tax break originally passed to help home state bank Washington Mutual, which went out of business.  It now only benefited large out of state banks  by eliminating B&O taxes they would otherwise have had to pay on interest on residential loans on 1st mortgages.


Again using Eyman’s push poll style ballot title the ballot title read:


The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the people, a business and occupation tax deduction for certain financial institutions’ interest on residential loans, costing $170,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.


This tax increase should be:


[  ]  Repealed


[  ]  Maintained


Again the public responded to the anti-tax bias in the ballot title and with no campaign supporting the measure and no further explanation, the public in their advisory vote mode voted 56.9% to 43.1% to repeal ending this tax break that didn’t benefit state taxpayers but did give a tax break to big out of state banks.


In Eyman’s world it is all black and white. Taxes are bad. Government is bad. And those that follow blindly after him are hurting their own self interest and the state’s ability to fund program that benefit the public. Fortunately the advisory votes were only “advisory”.  But knee jerk public reaction to be anti tax in Eyman’s libertarian world only leads to people blindly followed his pied piper like lead over the cliff as they respond without thinking.


Eyman this year continues his assault on state government by proposing a new initiative to the legislature to limit all tax increases to one year until the state puts on the ballot a constitutional amendment to  require a 2/3 vote to raise any revenue or repeal any tax exemption. This would turn over to a 1/3 minority faction of legislators veto power over a majority of legislators. It seems Eyman’s libertarian views are not held by the majority of Legislators elected so he needs to try to change the rules to let a minority of legislators run the state. Voters need to reject Eyman’s libertarian government takeover proposal by not signing  his initiative and vigorously opposing it if it makes it onto next year’s ballot.

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State

									

						Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Right Wing, Washington State Legislature					

													

						Tagged , , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
King County Parks Levy on August 6, 2013 Ballot


			

				Posted on May 2nd, 2013 | Comments Off on King County Parks Levy on August 6, 2013 Ballot
			


				

				
King County Councilmember Larry Phillips recently sent out the following e-mail:


King County Parks Levy on August Ballot


I am pleased to announce that today the Metropolitan King County Council approved sending to the voters—on the August 2013 ballot—a six-year property tax levy lid lift proposal to raise revenue for the maintenance and operations of the County’s regional park system, as well as funding for local city parks and the Woodland Park Zoo.  If approved by voters, the proposed levy would replace two voter approved measures set to expire at the end of 2013.


The King County Parks system has evolved from 150 acres in 1938 to more than 26,000 acres today, including regional county parks and trails such as Marymoor Park, Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park, the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Center and the Sammamish River Trail.


The adopted legislation sends to voters a six-year property tax levy lid lift of 18.77 cents per $1,000 of assessed value – an estimated $56 per year for the owner of a home valued at $300,000.  If approved by voters, the proceeds from the levy would go toward funding the maintenance and operation of King County’s 200 parks, 175 miles of regional trails, and 26,000 acres of open space.  Levy funds would also be used to expand the regional trails system – including developing the Lake to Sound Trail – and to expand the Community Partnership and Grant program, as well as to support local city parks and the Woodland Park Zoo.


The levy proposal is consistent with King County’s practice to end the use of county General Fund monies on regional parks, trails and open spaces, and on local facilities in the rural unincorporated areas, so the primary source of funding for the parks system is the voter-approved levy.  King County also continues its regional business plan for parks with support from non-profit, corporate and community partners.


The beauty of King County and our great natural resources are only surpassed by the energy and creativity of the people who live here, and the community support for our parks system is the perfect example of this fact.  Voters will decide in August whether to continue supporting a parks levy that provides funding to operate and maintain parks like Marymoor and Cougar Mountain, and to expand the regional trail system.


Thank you for the opportunity to share this important news with you.


Sincerely,


Larry Phillips, Councilmember


Metropolitan King County Council, District Four


King County Courthouse


516 Third Avenue, Room 1200


Seattle, WA 98104-3272


206.296.1004


larry.phillips@kingcounty.gov

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on King County Parks Levy on August 6, 2013 Ballot

									

						Posted in Elections, Environment, Urban Forests					

													

						Tagged , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Right Wing Tea Party Koch Brothers Trying to Buy the LA Times and Other Papers


			

				Posted on April 2nd, 2013 | Comments Off on Right Wing Tea Party Koch Brothers Trying to Buy the LA Times and Other Papers
			


				

				
As reported by  Think Progress  and others last month, the right wing Tea Party supporting billionaire Koch Brothers are exploring buying newspapers in an obvious attempt to use their fortune to get a mouthpiece to voters.


“Right-wing funders and business industrialists David and Charles Koch may purchase the Tribune Company newspapers, which include the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and the Los Angeles Times. The brothers are “interested in the clout they could gain through the Times’ editorial pages,” the Hollywood Reporter notes. Responding to the report, a spokesperson for Koch told the website that the brothers are “constantly exploring profitable opportunities in many industries and sectors”  


Daily Kos and others have entered the fray by purchasing an ad in the LA Times, after initially being rejected. They did so by refiling the ad, linking their statements to articles printed in the LA Times that noted “the Koch Brothers bankrolled the Tea Party, denied global warming and bought politicians.”


The Los Angeles Times advertising department has reversed its earlier decision to reject an advertisement from Daily Kos and the Courage Campaign urging the Chicago-based Tribune Company not to sell the 132-year-old Times to the billionaire Koch brothers. The ad will run in the main news section of Wednesday’s edition of the Times….


Tribune, whose merger in 2000 with Times-Mirror Corp., the Times’s owner at the time, made it the second largest newspaper publisher in the nation, has been reported to be considering selling the Times, the nation’s fourth most widely read newspaper, to the ultra-right-wing Kochs.


The Hollywood Reporter first broke this story on March 13, 2013. The Tribune Company has recently emerged from bankruptcy proceedings and is  looking for a buyer for their newspapers. As the Hollywood Reporter points out, the Koch Brothers represent right wing politics in the extreme. They are billionaires and  own Koch Industries which is currently the second largest privately owned company in the US.


The Koch brothers have long dominated American industry; their holdings include Georgia Pacific paper products as well as major fertilizer, refinery and oil pipeline companies. More recently they have become known for their financial support of Republican candidates, especially those from the Tea Party, and the fight against regulations and legislation aimed at curbing climate change.


The Koch Brothers involvement in the Tea Party however  goes far beyond just supporting them. As Brendan DeMille of the Huffington Post in February wrote in an article entitled, “Study Confirms Tea Party was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers“:


A new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene.


Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate disruption.


The Koch Brothers represent a threat to the free exchange of news and information and obviously have a history of trying to push their extreme right wing philosophy and politics at any cost and by any means. Their involvement and purchase in any newspaper or other media ownership poses a real threat to a free press, which we know is an ideal, yet special interests pushing their own extreme political biases over objectivity because they have the money and resources to own the media threatens  our society and basic democratic values  and principles in our country and the world.

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Right Wing Tea Party Koch Brothers Trying to Buy the LA Times and Other Papers

									

						Posted in campaign finance, Elections, free speech, Right Wing					

													

						Tagged , , , , , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Blair Butterworth and the WPPSS Fight


			

				Posted on April 2nd, 2013 | Comments Off on Blair Butterworth and the WPPSS Fight
			


				

				
It is with sadness that I learned of the passing of a friend and colleague a few days ago. Blair Butterworth  was a prominent political consultant in the Northwest where he lived for over 40 years.  Blair was an integral part of the Don’t Bankrupt Washington campaign to pass Initiative 394 in 1981. The voters passed the initiative with a 58% yes vote.  It was the first loss for the  Winner /Wagner Associates – the nuclear industry’s PR firm after they successfully beat back many attempts across the country to limit or stop nuclear power expansion.


Rather than running the campaign as a nuclear safety or environmental issue, the campaign was centered around the ever increasing financial costs of building nuclear power plants.  In Washington State, the Washington Public Power Supply System, committed to trying to build 5 nuclear power plants. Two were slated for Satsop and three in the Tri-Cities in eastern Washington.


Costs escalated from an initial estimate of $4 billion to over $24 billion before it all came tumbling down, resulting in the biggest municipal bond default in US history at the time. Unsuccessful attempts were made in the Washington State Legislature to control the costs but they were unsuccessful. In 1980 a group called SAVES – Support a Vote on Energy Spending attempted to get signatures to put an initiative on the ballot.  At the same time those opposed to nuclear power almost were collecting signatures on an initiative to ban nuclear waste coming to Hanford. Grassroots support was stretched and in the end only the Don’t Waste Washington initiative got on the ballot. It was passed by voters.


In December I met with the people involved in the SAVES effort and informed them that I was going to refile the initiative and push it as Don’t Bankrupt Washington.  Some changes were made in the drafting – the most significant long term being to add a requirement that cost effectiveness studies must be done on all large public power plants (over 250 MW) before they could issue bonds.  This was in addition to receiving a public vote of support from the areas that the public utility districts in WPPSS served who would be purchasing the power.


The cost effectiveness study provision was added after I consulted with Jim Lazar – a consulting economist in Olympia.  It turned out to represent a significant change in energy policy dynamics in our state, especially after studies were done on the WPPSS project that showed it was less expensive to generate new energy from other sources like energy efficiency and renewable energy than from huge costly centralized nuclear power plants.


Blair Butterworth became involved as the campaign moved forward by helping to raise needed funds and developing our campaign message.  Thanks to Blair it eventually became a campaign of national significance. He helped recruit the polling firm of Dresner, Morris and Tortelli.  Dick Morris was the main pollster we worked with.  Morris subsequently went on to be a consultant for Bill Clinton before he became the right wing writer and adviser for conservative Republican campaigns.


When polling showed there was strong public support for our initiative, we were able to reach out with Blair’s connections and know how to raise national money. I went to New York and Washington DC with Blair to present our campaign to national funders. With Blair’s help we were able to raise over $65,000 on this trip, including a $45,000 donation from Alida Rockefeller Dayton.


Our stop in New York took us to a meeting with Tony Schwartz, who liked what we were doing, and agreed to do our ads for one third of his normal cost.. Tony Schwartz is best known for having produced the famous “daisy ad” during the Johnson/Goldwater Presidential campaign.  The ad only aired once, never mentioned Goldwater, but the result was a precipitous 15 percentage point drop in Goldwater’s support immediately afterward. He authored several books, including “The Responsive Chord” in which he argued that ads didn’t really change voters views but tapped into what they already believed.


Blair’s campaign advice was invaluable throughout the campaign. Initiative 394 won by 58% of the vote on election day despite the nuclear industry setting a statewide spending record at the time by spending over $1.25 million dollars. We raised some $200,000 which at the time was also a record for grassroots initiative campaigns in our state.


The Don’t Bankrupt Washington campaign was written up in more detail in the book, “Citizen Lawmakers – The ballot Initiative Revolution” by David D Schmidt in 1989. The campaign was an exciting time for grassroots campaigns and Blair was a great associate and key to our success.


Blair was involved in many other campaigns. You can read more about Blair’s life at:


“Blair Butterworth, top political consultant is dead“, Strange Bedfellows, Seattle PI,March 29, 2013


“Obituary: Strategist Blair Butterworth helped Democrat win elections“, Seattle Times, March 29, 2013


“Prominent Political Consultant Blair Butterworth Has Died“, Seattle Weekly, March 29, 2013


Fond Memories of an Extraordinary Man, by Blair Butterworth, Seattle Times , March 22, 2005


 


 


 


 


 


 

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Blair Butterworth and the WPPSS Fight

									

						Posted in Democrats, Elections, Initiatives					

													

						Tagged , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Do District Elections for Seattle Make Sense?


			

				Posted on March 28th, 2013 | Comments Off on Do District Elections for Seattle Make Sense?
			


				

				
A third initiative effort is underway for district elections for Seattle City Council members. Two previous efforts have not been successful with the voters. The current proposal is for a hybrid system. It proposes to divide Seattle  into 7  districts and elect a Council member from each one.  Two additional members would be elected city wide. Right now all City Council members are elected citywide. You can see the proposal more specifically by visiting their website at Seattle Districts Now.


The real question is what is broken and is it necessary to radically change the current system.


Would district elections of Seattle City Council members be good for Seattle? The proponents argue that current  Seattle City Council members are out of touch with the neighborhoods and don’t respond to constituents. They argue  that they have no one to take their neighborhood problems to and that having one Council member elected from their district will solve that problem.


I believe it is wishful thinking to make the  assumption that the district person elected is going to somehow be more responsive  to neighborhood concerns and things will be better than the current situation. There is no guarantee.  Council members  are elected for 4 years so it would be 4 years before someone could run again to change things.  And there is the danger that district Council members may also  pay a lot less attention to  issues in other districts as well as city wide issues.


There is also the problem that even if you get a good District City Council member, you still need 5 votes out of 9 to get things done on the Council. Former City Council member Sam Smith was fond of repeating this over and over.


Dividing the city into districts means that because 7 of the new Council members would each only represent 1/7 of the voters and only 2 all of the voters, that this combination would give the Mayor more power and diminish the power of the City Council compared to the current City Council /Mayor structure where they are all elected citywide.


Right now nine City Council members represent all voters and voters can approach any of the nine City Council members for help. Council members are responsible for the whole city, not just 1/7 of the city. Under district elections you are pinning your hopes on one City Council member to be your primary representative.


What if that city council member is not responsive to your needs? Going to any of the other 6 district Council members probably will not be as successful because they are much less likely to feel the need to respond to your concerns as you are no longer their constituent who can vote against them. And if the issue does not involve a neighborhood in their district they are more likely to not get involved.


It’s just like trying to talk to a state legislator about a problem in your legislative district and he/she is a representative from another legislative district. He/she may listen to you but will more than likely tell you to talk to your own elected representatives.


You have 2 other city wide City Council members to try but it is not the same as having 9 possible council members to approach as you can now.


In addition proponents of district elections  argue that it is too expensive to run for Seattle City Council and that being able to run in a smaller area means more people can run and have a chance of winning without having to raise big dollars. In the 2011 cycle, incumbent City Council members raised on the average about $250,000 and most challengers usually raised much less. Money means outreach and voter contact and without it is is difficult to run.


I have run twice for the Seattle City Council myself and came in third twice. I understand the money problem but  I also think that with this proposal  people may be  putting too many hopes on the idea that changing the election process will generate more success in electing neighborhood candidates. I think the problems are bigger than that.


One basic fact will still remain. Most incumbents in Seattle are pretty well versed on the issues before them and have name recognition and media exposure that challengers usually do not. Not all challengers are qualified to run for office, lacking experience in city issues or campaign experience. Voters need a reason to throw an incumbent out.  And they need some sense that the challenger will do a better job.


It is a false assumption to assume that incumbency, name recognition  or money will no longer be big factors in who gets elected. Once elected in a District it will be hard to remove incumbents. One only has to look at how long some state Legislators have stayed in office and how  hard it is to challenge them.


As to money I believe the same interests that support the current elected City Council members will still put their money into candidates that represent their interests. Money will still be a significant factor in City Council races.It is highly likely that most of the current City Council members will adjust to a new system and either run for a District seat in the area they live in or one of the two citywide seats and some will move if need be to another district to run.


The downtown interests and developer interests and business interests that neighborhood groups point to as funding the current Council members are not going to declare defeat or ignore City Council races because of District elections.  They will support the same people who represent their interests whether they run in District elections or City wide. They will also recruit candidates to run in Districts to represent their interests if current Council members do not run in those districts. And expect they will spend as much as now to elect their candidates only the efforts will now be focused on a much smaller population of voters.


Business interests will still be able to target their mailers to voters in the Districts and will still be able to draw contributions  and support from business interests citywide as well as PAC donations.


Meanwhile I think neighborhood candidates will have a more difficult time raising money because neighborhood people across the city will be less likely to give money to elect a candidate not running in their neighborhood. It is similar to what happens now in electing State Legislators. Most of their individual donors live in their legislative district. And other money coming from PAC’s will have the same strings attached as if they were running citywide.


Perspective neighborhood candidates will also have to face the limitations of running based on where they live.   With district elections the options will be limited to either running against the incumbent in your district or for one of the two city wide seats.  If their district incumbent is entrenched or popular or both their options are limited for running.


Right now perspective candidates can pick any incumbent city council candidate to run against  or any seat. They can pick who they consider the weakest incumbent is. With district elections they would have to move to do that if it isn’t their incumbent district city council member. Moving unfortunately is not an option for most people or candidates, particularly challengers who are not guaranteed to win in any sense of the word.


Unfortunately  moving would take you out of the district you live in, raising the issue of being a carpetbagger. In addition it would remove you  from your previous district  connections and involvement and credentials  that supposedly are one of  a neighborhood candidate’s assets to running in a district. And if you lose you have to wait 4 more years before you can run again in that district. Right now if you lose you can run again in two years  if an open seat emerges or you just decide to run again against a different sitting incumbent.


Suppose you live in a District that has an incumbent neighborhood advocate like say Council member Nick Licata and you want to run. You’re not going to run against him so your only option is to run for one of the two citywide seats up every 4 years, which may also have 2 popular incumbents. Do you move? Your options to run have now become much more limited and the options of other good candidates have also become more limited, because of the restrictions that district boundaries place on your ability to run.


These and other concerns need to be weighted carefully before neighborhood advocates and others charge forward with significant changes to how we elect City Council members.  I believe difficulties will still remain and it will be just as difficult to get elected as it is now.  Downtown and business interests will still play a pivotal role in funding and electing candidates and are not going to concede the City Council to neighborhood advocates.


The prime criteria to get elected will still remain – the need to be a credible candidate with a clear  compelling reason for voters to vote for you, the ability to articulate a vision for the future of the city, not just your neighborhood, the ability to raise money, the ability to communicate your message to voters and the ability  connect with the voters.


 

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Do District Elections for Seattle Make Sense?

									

						Posted in Elections, General interest, Initiatives					

													

						Tagged , , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Rod Dembowski Appointed to Fill Vacant King County Council Seat


			

				Posted on February 11th, 2013 | Comments Off on Rod Dembowski Appointed to Fill Vacant King County Council Seat
			


				

				
Rod at Campaign Event 2/10/2013


Rod Dembowki was selected today by the King County Council to fill the vacant seat left with the election last November of King County Council member Bob Ferguson to be Washington State’s Attorney General. Rod’s appointment is to fill the vacancy for the remainder of 2013.  The King County Council District 1 seat will be on the November 2013 ballot. Rod plans to run for election to the seat.


The King County Council voted 8 to 0 to appoint Rod. While a number of candidates vied for the appointment, the final vote was taken among the 3 candidates whose names were forwarded to the King County Council by King County Executive Dow Constantine.  The other two candidates considered for the final vote were Will Hall – a Shoreline City Council member  and 32nd LD State Representative Cindy Ryu.


Rod posted  the following statement on his website after the appointment:


“I am thankful to the King County Council for their faith in my ability to join them as a colleague in public service,” said Rod.  “I am so grateful to the many endorsers and organizations that supported me in the appointment process, especially the many state representatives, mayors, and city council members.  I look forward to working with them as we develop regional plans to benefit all of King County.  I am especially grateful to Bernie Talmas, Mayor of Woodinville and Chair of the Eastside Transportation Partnership and Denis Law, Mayor of Renton and President of the Sound Cities Association, for their unwavering commitment to my appointment.”


Rod thanked the other two finalists, State Representative Cindy Ryu and Shoreline City Councilmember Will Hall for their public service.  “I look forward to working with Representative Ryu in the legislature on behalf of the citizens of King County and I hope to work with Councilmember Hall as we develop regional plans that benefit our suburban cities,” said Rod.


“I am honored to have been given the opportunity to work on behalf of the residents of District 1 and all of King County,” said Rod.  Getting right to work, Rod will attend the Kenmore and Shoreline city council meetings this evening.


Attorney General Bob Ferguson at Rod Dembowki Campaign Event 2/10/2013


Rod also announced the endorsement of Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson for his election to the seat in November. You can visit Rod Dembowski’s  website  to endorse him or make a contribution to his campaign.  Dembowski has  raised $67,361 from 236 contributions for his campaign according to the most recent records filed through January with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.


Supporters listening to Rod at Campaign Event 2/10/2013

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Rod Dembowski Appointed to Fill Vacant King County Council Seat

									

						Posted in Democrats, Elections					

													

						Tagged , , , , , 					

											

		


		
	


			

			
Four Bad Bills on Election Issues Before the Washington State Legislature


			

				Posted on February 11th, 2013 | Comments Off on Four Bad Bills on Election Issues Before the Washington State Legislature
			


				

				
Tell Your Washington State Legislators What You Think!


The four bills listed below are before the Washington State Legislature and need to be opposed. Urge your Legislators not to support these bills.


Oppose SB 5291 – “modifies provisions relating to signing and receipt of ballots”


This bill says that voters must “return or mail the ballot to the county auditor so that the ballot is received by the county auditor no later than 8 PM the day of the election or primary.”


This bill eliminates the ability to mail ballots and have them postmarked on Election Day and still count. With the upcoming elimination of Saturday mail it means ballots will have to be mailed Thursday or Friday with no guarantee they will reach the Elections dept on Tuesday.


Tell your legislators you want to be able to mail your ballots up to and including Election Day and still have them count.


Oppose SB 5277 – “reducing costs and inefficiencies in elections”


This bill will eliminate the printing of the text of ballot measures in the Voter’s Pamphlet. You would have to look them up on the internet rather than having them available to read as you fill out the ballot. Not everyone has easy access to a computer and this bill will make it harder to understand what it is you’re being asked to vote on.


Tell your Legislators not to eliminate printing the text of initiatives and referendum in the Voter’s Pamphlet.


Oppose House Joint Resolutions 4201 and 4206 – These two resolutions propose that the Legislature approve and submit to the voters a constitutional amendment requiring that the majority vote now in the Washington State Constitution that is needed to raise revenue be raised to a 2/3 voting requirement by both Houses, effectively giving a 1/3 minority of State legislators veto power over any increases in revenue to fund state services like educating our kids or providing for health care. A 2/3 vote would also be needed to repeal any tax loophole while allowing a simple majority to create new loopholes.


Tell your Legislators you oppose turning the power of the Legislature to fund state services like educating our children over to a 1/3 minority of Legislators. Leave the Washington State Constitution as it is.  It does not need to be changed to benefit special interests and corporations.


Your Legislators can be sent e-mails at www.leg.wa.gov or you can call their offices directly and leave a message.  Or you can call the toll free hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

							

	
			

					
Comments Off on Four Bad Bills on Election Issues Before the Washington State Legislature

									

						Posted in Elections, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature					

													

						Tagged , , , , , , ,