The Seattle Times opined yesterday that
THE good news about redistricting the county is that it has been done in a spirit of industrious bipartisanship, and the Democrat-Republican balance on the Metropolitan King County Council has been maintained until changed by the votersYes, the maintenance of the Sims-Phillips machine's stranglehold on King County is good news all right, as long as you don't care about, say, honest government, clean elections and/or private property.
But, as the Times goes on to explain, the new districts were gerrymandered to create 5 safe Democrat districts for the 5 machine stalwarts (Phillips, Edmonds, Gossett, Constantine and Patterson), to squeeze out reformist Democrat Bob Ferguson and Republican David Irons, leaving only 4 districts where Republicans are likely to be competitive.
A more fair way to downsize the 13 member council (currently 7 Democrat, 6 Republican members, and 3 swing districts between them) to 9 seats would be 4 Democrat, 4 Republican and 1 swing district. So how did we find ourselves with the machine-preserving gerrymandering? Two Republican Councilmembers, Pete von Reichbauer and Jane Hague joined with the Democrats throughout the entire redistricting process in order to preserve their own seats, at the expense of the rest of the Republican caucus and their constituents.
Last month Hague and von Reichbauer voted with council Democrats against their fellow Republicans McKenna, Lambert, Irons and Hammond to keep long-time Republican districting guru Dick Derham off the redistricting committee. Derham's spot was filled by former Weyerhauser executive Steve Dennis who agreed to the appointment of Steve Ohlenkamp, Hague's former chief of staff, as the tie breaking committee chair; a move Derham never would have permitted. It is Ohlenkamp who refused Republican requests for an even division of districts between the parties with one swing district and instead produced and insisted on the final map that places Republicans in a permanent minority for the remainder of the decade.
The consequences of Hague and von Reichbauer's betrayal will reverberate for years. Those hoping for the kind of election reforms that might stop another election like 2004 can hold their breath if this map is approved. Same goes for those wanting to reverse the onerous critical areas ordinances.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 15, 2005 08:02 AM | Email ThisRemember 90% of the country has some sort of religious core and a set of values; they will become increasingly intolerant of those power hungry individuals and their antics. Moreover, these people are from both sides of the isle.
Once upon a time, I believed in protest votes, and often withheld my vote from certain Republicans because they weren't pure enough. Now fully converted to the "majorities mattter" school of thought, I will hold my nose and vote for even a bad Republican if it will put a lot of good Republicans in the majority.
But... there is no longer any possibility of a majority on the Council, so what difference does it make? Like the NFL preseason, it doesn't really count, and it's the perfect time for purging and purification.
Jennifer Dunn just bought a condo in Kirkland. Let's encourage her son to do the same. In fact, let's all make our support of him 100% conditional on his moving to Kirkland. Otherwise, he's going to take out Steve Hammond, a true conservative and awesome guy, instead of Jane The Backstabbing Rino.
Posted by: TB on January 15, 2005 12:09 PMWhen redistricting is done by the old fashioned "gerrymander" process, the individuals in power don't have to worry about anyone other than the dyed-in-the-wool partisan voters they drew that line on the map to encircle.
In other words, they have their "safe" districts, because they know most of the people within that district line will vote for the party's candidate.
Until you can attain a majority of the seats on the council, the people in power don't have to pay much attention to you.
Of course they take you all for granted -- you're in the minority, just like they planned when they drew the new map of the council districts; and the dyed-in-the-wool partisan voters they depend on for re-election may take decades to change their opinions, if they ever do.
Frustrating, isn't it?
But what can you do? Just keep plugging away. They didn't get to be the majority party on the council by sitting back and waiting for someone to hand it to them. You cannot become the majority by sitting back either.
Posted by: Micajah on January 15, 2005 10:41 PMWHY DOES DUNN NOT CHALLENGE HAGUE AND VON REICHBAUER, WHO RATTED US ON THE REDISTRICTING?
PLEASE WRITE TO HIM AND TELL HIM TO HELP US GET OUR ENEMIES OFF THE COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF A GOOD, LOYAL AND HARD-WORKING STEVE HAMMOND!!
Posted by: Edwina Johnston on March 3, 2005 06:17 AMWHY DOES DUNN NOT CHALLENGE HAGUE AND VON REICHBAUER, WHO RATTED US ON THE REDISTRICTING?
PLEASE WRITE TO HIM AND TELL HIM TO HELP US GET OUR ENEMIES OFF THE COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF A GOOD, LOYAL AND HARD-WORKING STEVE HAMMOND!!
Posted by: Edwina Johnston on March 3, 2005 06:17 AMWHY DOES DUNN NOT CHALLENGE HAGUE AND VON REICHBAUER, WHO RATTED US ON THE REDISTRICTING?
PLEASE WRITE TO HIM AND TELL HIM TO HELP US GET OUR ENEMIES OFF THE COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF A GOOD, LOYAL AND HARD-WORKING STEVE HAMMOND!!
Posted by: Edwina Johnston on March 3, 2005 06:17 AM"Why does Dunn not challenge Hague or Von Reichbauer?" Perhaps because they are all in on this together. Part of that gerrymandering was including Dunn and Hammond in the same district so Dunn could take out Hammond. Dunn has made comments that Hammond is "too conservative".
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on March 17, 2005 10:03 PM