October 23, 2008
Election Suggestions

King County Charter Amendments:

#1 - Elected Elections Director - This is in response to the King County elections scandal of 2004 when votes for Gregoire kept appearing until she had enough to declare victory. In the long run, it solves nothing. In a Democrat or Republican controlled county, the election of a partisan as elections director is as much or more likely than an executive appointed council approved director. VOTE NO.

#2 - Prohibiting Discrimination - Who can be against banning discrimination by King County against homosexuals or the disabled? Ask the Boy Scouts who would not be allowed to rent or use county facilities because they don't let gay men be scout leaders. Some way to allow exceptions to the rule is needed. VOTE NO.

#3 - Regional Committees - VOTE YES.

#4 - Additional Qualifications for Elected Officials. - Now get this, before someone could run for sheriff, assessor or elections director (see #1), they'd have to meet qualifications set by the County Council. Surely they jest. What an opportunity for political mischief. VOTE NO.

#5 - Establishing Forecast Council and Office of Economic and Financial Analysis - A country economist, if truly independent, would be useful for planning and budgeting. Hopefully, the office could support other local governments. VOTE YES.

#6 - Budget Deadlines - VOTE YES.

#7 - Charter Amendment by Citizen Initiative - This would make it more difficult for voters to change the county charter by initiative. Power to the People. VOTE NO.

#8 Non Partisan Elections - This would make the County Council, County Executive and Assessor non-partisan offices. The Seattle mayor and council are non-partisan, right? Sure they are. Deleting political parties does not guarantee good government but it does remove one more bit of information voters can use to judge candidates. Information that may indicate the most likely candidate view point on issues like land use, business climate, government programs, taxes and spending. VOTE NO.

Sound Transit Proposition 1 to expand mass transit - This puts us close to a 10% sales tax and spends billions (they say $17.9B) primarily to push light rail across I-90 to the East side, north to Northgate and south from Sea-Tac to Redondo/Star Lake. The list of reasons to vote no is too long to list but let's see how well the current light rail works before we plunge into another light rail gamble. VOTE NO.

City of Seattle

Proposition 1 - Pike Place Market and
Proposition 2 - Six Year Property Tax for Parks

This is not the climate for raising property taxes. Try taking a hard look at the city budget to see how much is allocated to basic services such as fire, police, streets, parks and libraries before yielding to the all too common practice of using special levies for the popular programs while spending freely on items extraneous to the core mission of the city. VOTE NO.

State of Washington

Initiative Measure 985 proposes several measures designed to increase traffic flow such as use of HOV lanes in non rush hour times, synchronization of traffic lights and dedication of certain traffic related income to traffic flow purposes. There is just too much handcuffing detail in this measure. It is planning by initiative, which rarely works well. VOTE NO.

Initiative Measure 1000 is death with dignity or assisted suicide similar to the Oregon law. Today one can get hospice care, decline artificial means or heroic efforts to keep one alive, receive pain-killing drugs and refuse treatment. Adding suicide is too far down the slippery slope. VOTE NO.

Initiate Measure 1029 Certification of long-term care workers. Sounds good but raises serious concerns for family member care givers. The Legislature should work on this one. VOTE NO.

clearfogblog

Posted by warrenpeterson at October 23, 2008 06:32 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Warren, I agree with you on most, but not all, of your suggestions.

I'll take strong issue with your No on the Elected Elections Director. It's less about partisanship than accountability and independence. The current appointed elections director is accountable solely to the county executive and subordinate to the executive's other priorities. An independent elected director is directly accountable to the voters. It's not a panacea, but an improvement.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 23, 2008 07:59 PM
2. #2 - Prohibiting Discrimination - Who can be against banning discrimination by King County against homosexuals or the disabled? Ask the Boy Scouts who would not be allowed to rent or use county facilities because they don't let gay men be scout leaders. Some way to allow exceptions to the rule is needed. VOTE NO.

Why is an exception needed? And since the whole point is to discourage discrimination by groups like the Boy Scouts, why should we ask such discriminatory groups how they feel about the rule?

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2008 08:22 PM
3. Warren, I have to disagree with you on Charter Amendment #1. We need an elected elections director who will be vetted by the people themselves. Despite what the League of Women Voters says, voters are smart enough to decide who ought to be director, based on the credentials of the various candidates. All the other counties of Washington State have the equivalent of an elected elections director (usually called an auditor), for good reason: those individuals are held accountable to the people of their county. Ron Sims failed to fire Dean Logan when the people of King County would have replaced him themselves, by a recall if necessary, because Dean Logan brought embarrassment upon the people of King County. Incidentally, what is wrong with a partisan elections director? The people of King County will get what they want. If one candidate identifies with one party, while another candidate identifies with the other party, even if it is a "nonpartisan" race, enough people will still have the good sense to vote for the more qualified and honest of the two candidates.
I, for one, do not like the prospect of an elections director who might be threatened with dismissal by the executive if he or she doesn't "toe the line." Second- or third-rate appointed elections directors are particularly vulnerable to this threat. An incumbent elected elections director will always be heavily scrutinized by the challenger, which can only be healthy in a system that requires eternal vigilance.
I strongly agree with you on #4.

Posted by: Tim B. on October 23, 2008 08:32 PM
4. Seems to me that banning discrimination casts a wider net than the Boy Scouts.

Many religious groups ban gay folks as leaders. The Girl Scouts ban boys as members (but interestingly the Boy Scouts accept girls in some of their programs). Sports teams "ban" disabled folks.

Posted by: BA on October 23, 2008 08:55 PM
5. A few points to toss back at you Warren.
Elections director: Do you really believe the status quo prevents the exact situation you describe?
Init. 985, You're wrong. I can't think of a single passed Eyman initiative that wasn't so effective the Olympia bunch took great pains to thwart. And why not handcuff that bunch. Haven't you noticed what they're doing to us common folk?

Posted by: PC on October 24, 2008 07:21 AM
6. Warren,
I don't have the King County and Seattle items on my ballot, so I won't comment on those.

With regards to the state initiatives, I do agree with your recommendations.

I think voters need to read the Voters Guide on the initiatives and not just go by the title or who sponsored them. While I-985 sounds good on the surface, when you read the details, you go wait a minute, this thing goes into too much minutia and handcuffing. I liked the term you used, it is planning by initiative. If the initiative had just focused on the HOV lanes, then I think it would have been fine and probably succeeded. It is the "weeds" details regarding synchronization of stop lights that goes too far. I don't disagree in a city like Seattle that stop lights need to be synchronized, but that is a city issue to address, not a state directed mandate. If Eyman want the cities to synchronize their light then take it to those city councils.

Posted by: tc on October 24, 2008 07:39 AM
7. The elected elections director comes down to one question.

Do you trust Ron Sims?

My answer is unequivocally no, so I'm voting YES.

I'm voting yes on I-985 too. The bureaucrats aren't interested in relieving traffic congestion, and this is at least one way to force them to address it. If "handcuffing" politicians is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Posted by: Palouse on October 24, 2008 08:33 AM
8. TC, think about that for a minute.
For a city/county/state that taxes gas, it's in their interest to NOT sync the stop lights.
Look at the whining they do when the trend is to get more fuel efficient cars. They say they lose revenues and raise taxes.
Keeping vehicles moving is the BEST way to improve mileage with the vehicles currently on the road. Ask anybody in the know how much more energy goes to getting a car moving vs keeping it moving.
Sync the lights, cut the governments power. It's that simple.

Posted by: PC on October 24, 2008 08:36 AM
9. I disagree on your vote for I-985 and I-1000. I-985 will force the DOT to divert the majority of their funds to congestion relief. It's the only way we'll get the Democrats in this state to stop trying to force us out of our cars by making it painful to drive to work.

I-1000 makes humane a very common form of ending the suffering amongst terminally ill patients. My great aunt had lupus which caused her a lot of pain. She was also made very sick by all of the pain management treatments she was receiving right near the end of her life. Her solution was to get up a dawn, go outside and watch the sunrise on a beach and then put a pistol in her mouth and pull the trigger.

This is a liberty issue and a practical one. People will kill themselves if they want to. I-1000 finally would give them an option to do it humanely and, as the initiative says, with dignity.

Posted by: blindman on October 24, 2008 09:27 AM
10. Regional committees are dangerous. It sets up these groups in a way that multiplies the influence (voting power) of council members while giving them cover when needed.

Posted by: Paddy on October 24, 2008 01:34 PM
11. Everything but charter amendment #1 and I-985, I agree on. On those two items, I'm voting YES.

Posted by: Duvall John on October 27, 2008 09:21 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?