Now that King County voters have changed the county charter so that the Director of Elections is to be elected, the first race for county Elections Director is underway.
Three plausible candidates have filed in the race. The most qualified is David Irons, who served two terms on the County Council and has been a business executive in the IT sector. Also highly qualified is former Superintendent of Elections Julie Anne Kempf.
Irons was an early advocate of the charter change, which he introduced as an ordinance to the County Council in early 2005. (Council Democrats obstructed the charter change, and voters placed it on the ballot by initiative)
Current elections director Sherril Huff is a holdover from the Dean Logan days and was appointed to the top elections post in 2007 after Ron Sims' first choice imploded. After insisting for months that she wasn't interested in running for the job, Huff, a Kitsap county resident, "moved" to King County last week, and registered to vote just in time to file for the office. Democratic Party officials then Blagojeviched some deals with as many of the Democrat-leaning candidates as they could convince to play along in order to clear the way for Huff to be the only approved Democrat in the race. Huff's performance in office has been a continuation of the incompetence, partisanship, dishonesty and non-transparency of the Dean Logan days. She should not be elected to the office.
Kempf is also a Democrat, but unlike Huff, doesn't blindly accept orders from Ron Sims. Sims fired her as Superintendent of Elections 6 years ago, ostensibly for lying about some absentee ballots that were sent out late. Kempf maintains that she was wrongly terminated and had merely relayed information that she believed to be true but had been misrepresented to her by others. She asserts that Sims used the incident as an excuse to let her go because she refused to cooperate with her management's unethical actions and instructions. I would expect Kempf to explain more about this to the public during the course of the campaign. Certainly given Ron Sims record of habitual dishonesty and the fact that he did NOT fire Dean Logan or Sherril Huff for lying about far more serious things than he accused Kempf of lying about, I would be inclined to believe Kempf's version of events before I believed Ron Sims.
In addition to Irons, Kempf and Huff, 3 quixotic vanity candidates will also be on the ballot, none of whom have sufficient skills for the office, or sufficient support to seriously compete in the race.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 13, 2008 05:51 PM | Email ThisSuffice it to say, my vote will be going to someone other than Huff. Thanks for the post, and I hope this election gets more publicity.
Posted by: Icarus on December 13, 2008 08:35 PMNo wonder the GOP is a laughingstock - they keep picking the same losers and Mom-beaters who abuse their employees. If you can't trust a man to not beat his own mother, how can he be trusted to run an organization?
Posted by: correctnotright on December 13, 2008 08:40 PMDo you have anyone you support? I'm not going to vote for someone who presided over me nearly being unable to vote, but as I was reading the article, it was quite humorous how many of the candidates either have prior ethical clouds over them or seem to have moved here for the election.
Posted by: Icarus on December 13, 2008 08:44 PMYou lowlifes drag out the fake "beat his Mom" crap in every election because you can't win a debate over a real issue. His Mom is one of you, willing to lie about anything for a fellow liberal to win. How sad to turn on your own son because he isn't one of your party.
This is the ultimate irony. David is running a clean election about cleaning up elections while you pathetic worms continue to use unethical tactics in order to keep control over your ability to run corrupt elections.
Did Dave lose by 14 points? You bet he did. He was winning on the issues right up till the day the liberal nut jobs started with the bogus personal attacks. The good news is that if he brings in the same percentage of votes in this election he will win it.
Do I have a challenge for you corrupt machine political types...
Just once, run a clean election, issues only, bet you can't do it, can you? Try it just once, I dare you.
Won't ever happen, it is like asking a crack addict to turn away a hit.
David Irons actually lost by a little over 16 points to Ron Sims in 2005.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/2005Nov/resPage2.htm
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 13, 2008 09:51 PMYou lot have been punked, and now you're whining about it. You plotted and schemed for years to get this election, figuring that the Democrats would be split and that you could sneak some right wing retard in there, and Sims and Pelz and Suzie Sheary have outsmarted you totally.
We''re united behind Huff. We're going to shove this election right up your you-know-what, and you're powerless to affect the outcome.
Better look to hold onto your County Council seats, because we're coming after them, too.
Posted by: ivan on December 13, 2008 10:18 PM
Julie Ann Kempf would be OK also, based on her previous history. This is a step in the right direction because anyone who is elected will be better than Dean Logan, who presides over an already corrupt LA - what a friggin joke.
Posted by: KS on December 13, 2008 10:31 PMKempf was fired as Elections Superintendent by Ron Sims on January 2, 2003 because tens of thousands of absentee ballots were sent out late for the 2002 general election. Interestingly enough, Kempf's home was listed for foreclosure (for the second time) on October 3, 2002 -- so perhaps the impending foreclosure distracted Kempf from making sure the absentee ballots were sent out timely.
Kempf may have been without decent employment since she was fired as Elections Superintendent. But the first two foreclosure actions were started in February 2002 and October 2002 -- when Kempf still held the lucrative Elections position. Even when Kempf had a really decent salary, she still couldn't pay her mortgage timely and let her house get into foreclosure.
Kempf also appears to have an interesting traffic record in Seattle Municipal Court, but their website is currently down.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 13, 2008 11:09 PMThe Chicago Tribune led the charge against Blogo and the scandelous Crook County Dimocrat Machine. Conversley, Seattle's "newspapers" sat silent during King County's scandelous theft of the '04 governors election, taking a pass on the story of the decade. It is no wonder the local fishwraps are dying, as they are nothing but mouthpieces for slimy Ron Sims and his echo-chamber of leftist dimwits.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 14, 2008 06:21 AM
I've always appreciated your communistic, Borg-style approach to politics... kind of a "we will assimilate you, resistance is futile, playground bully" approach.
One can only wonder if you even begin to realize what a total asshole you sound like. Or, as a fringe leftist nutjob, if you're even capable of caring.
You see, at the end of the day, the worst that could happen is we get another corrupt, Blagojevich-style democrat in there, to replace the current corrupt-appointed democrat already there.
"Punked?" Is that what they used you for in prison, Comrade? You may "huff" all you like. But it will be interesting to see how this all blows out. And if it follows the script, you'll once again wind up looking like the 24 carat, gold-plated moron that you are.
Ciao.
Posted by: Hinton on December 14, 2008 06:40 AMLike the stupidity of electing judges, we'll end up having folks run our elections who are in debt to those who helped them run successful campaigns. It'll be opening up Illinois politics here.
We asked for it, some championed it (e.g. Stefan), but we all will suffer from this horrible idea down the road. Both Republicans and Democrats will suffer.
Posted by: Sad Day on December 14, 2008 06:53 AMThank you for the badge of honor. I strive every day to be worthy of it.
In the meantime which party is entirely dominated by lawyers? Why it's that "party of the people". How many Democrat leaders have ever done anything in their adult lives other than litigate?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 14, 2008 08:47 AMProblem is that this is a 6-way race and with the R vote split between Irons and Roach it is unlikely that either will be able to get more than a united Democratic party heartily supporting Huff. The D base is much bigger than R base in King County. That smaller R base will be split. Kempf will likely pull some D votes to split the D vote a bit -- but not nearly as many as Roach on the R side.
Ivan -- who is Suzie Sheary?
Sounds like the D selection process was quite a smoke-filled room, very Chicago style... Still, by getting 5 Ds to drop out right before filing and having just one Democrat who is getting a ton of party-machine/Sims support/$, if one were to take a bet, it looks like Huff's to lose.
Almost the best shot is having Huff knocked out as not-eligible due to residency issues. Becomes a Irons/Roach race then.
Who is this candidate Anderson who signed up at the last minute? I assume he'll only get a couple points (nice name, he's on the ballot). Any reason to think otherwise?
Posted by: Anthony on December 14, 2008 10:04 AMAnd Ivan -- Yes, Sims, Pelz and Sheary have found scheme whereby 70,000 Huff voters might "outsmart" 74,000 I-25 petition signers, 240,000 I-25 voters, and nearly 450,000 Charter Amendment #1 voters.
Smarts like these can have repercussions for decades on end, and have been known to turn red turf blue -- or vice versa.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle on December 14, 2008 10:14 AMGolly, not unlike a former President's wife who moved her address to "run for other political offices". Amazing how the exact same issue is treated differently by the leftist press.
Irons is labled a "telecommunications entrepreneur". Actually I believe he was a partner in his father's cable company. In any event the very mention of Irons brings out the nastiest of comments about him "beating his mother" and on and on. Liberals only like due process when one of their own is accused of improper behavior.
I'd love to have either Roach or Irons in the position. A Democrat will do what Democrats always do. Lie, cheat, and litigate. It's who they are.
We have already suffered far worse from the horrible idea of unqualified Democratic insiders in control of the King County Elections Department. There no end of evidence that they can't or won't follow lawful procedures. So an elected Elections director (read: voteable-outable) will be a great step in the right direction.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 14, 2008 11:59 AMIf you really want anyone to believe your post. Learn to POST just once.
Fool............ LOL
Pam Roach is on the right side of many issues. But the poor woman has serious psychiatric problems. Just ask her colleagues (and employees!) in the state Senate Republican Caucus.
Posted by: Pam Roach is Nuts on December 14, 2008 02:01 PMYou'd think somebody might run on a platform of improving the electoral system not "everybody else sucks more than me".
Huff has screwed up my ballot every single election she's been in charge. This year somehow my voting address got changed to Kent (I live in Kirkland) and it didn't get fixed before the election so I had to vote a Kent ballot, and leave the legislature races blank. I even found out that a ballot had been sent to this phony Kent address, but they never answered any of my questions about how my address got changed and who the heck was voting my ballot.
Kempf had a chance and screwed up- she may be better than Huff, but that's not saying a lot.
David Irons is okay, I suppose he'll do a decent job, but I think he's ambitious and he views this as a stepping stool to higher office- not really what I want for the first elected elections officer.
I wish Jane Hague would run for the office, she's run an election office before, and she's trusted by people on both sides of the partisan divide.
Posted by: Cicero on December 14, 2008 08:25 PMDavid Irons is okay, I suppose he'll do a decent job, but I think he's ambitious and he views this as a stepping stool to higher office- not really what I want for the first elected elections officer.I have no idea whether Irons would like to run for higher office. But think about it for a minute -- the only way that anybody who takes this job could possibly use it to further their electoral career would be if they did a good job in the office. If they screw up an election, their chances of successfully running for something else are essentially 0.
In that sense it's a much tougher stepping stone (or stool) than, say, a legislative office, where you don't have to actually deliver specific results to market yourself as a success.
So I don't think it's a problem if someone who wanted to run for something else some day took this job knowing that they could only advance into another office if they did a good job in this one.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 14, 2008 08:55 PMBut I'd prefer a public servant without any future ambition- try and create a non-partisan proffesional nature for the office.
But oh well, Irons is far better than what we have had.
Posted by: Cicero on December 16, 2008 12:17 PM