In 2007 56% of the voters said that it would be a good idea to elect the Elections Director. 44% said it would be a bad idea.
Again in 2008 56% of the voters said that it would be a good idea to elect the Elections Director. 44% said it would be a bad idea.
In 2009 56% of the voters voted for a reform candidate. 44% of the voters voted for a candidate who thought it would be a bad idea to elect the Elections Director; who has repeatedly covered up and lied about problems in the Elections office under her watch; and who wasn't even eligible to run for the office in the first place.
Perhaps the 44% who voted for her were the same 44% who said it was a bad idea to elect the Elections Director to begin with and were trying to prove to the other 56% that they were right all along!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2009 08:33 PM | Email ThisThank you. Feel proud about what you have accomplished. At least now a bit of Democracy has been reestablished in King County. The process is in place for the people of this county to take their government back from these partisan vote fraud lovers. The citizens of King County simply need to learn how to pay attention and elect people with integrity.
That may take a bit longer.
Posted by: Reality on February 3, 2009 08:37 PMI must say, though, that after two years of hard work, I'm disappointed. The Citizens Elections Oversight Committee and the Elections Task Force both said that King County should have a non-partisan elected Director of Elections to increase public confidence that our elections are fair, honest, transparent, and independent of influence by the county executive, county council, and political parties. What did we get? A Director who thinks things are just fine as they are, who is publicly committed to continuing to do things the way they've been done, who was appointed to her position by the county executive and confirmed by the council, and who is beholden to the executive for clearing the field for her and to the Democratic Party for paying most of her campaign budget. That's not what I was hoping for. Given those facts, I doubt our elections are going to become any more fair, honest, transparent, or independent than they've been in the past.
I hope Sherril Huff proves me wrong, cuts the cords that bind her to the Democratic Party despite her being fully aligned with them and owing her election to them, and becomes the independent voice for election integrity that King County so desperately needs.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Sherril Huff indicated she planned to work only a couple more years before retiring anyway. Maybe we'll have an open seat in 2011, and can use the vetting process of a full election cycle to really hear from the candidates and what they believe about voter registration and election issues and what they plan to advocate on our behalf in Olympia and Washington DC. And with the departure of Ron Sims, maybe we'll be able to find a county executive who will create a culture of openness and transparency, take a completely hands-off approach to the administration of elections, and provide the elections department the resources it needs to accomplish its critical mission. We can only hope.
Posted by: Toby Nixon on February 3, 2009 09:02 PMAnd it's ironic to hear you complain that the winner didn't get a majority, when your side wrote the initiative that enabled that to happen. Goldy pointed out how stupid it was to not have a primary, and how Republicans might benefit from it.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2009 09:03 PMWhile Sherril Huff's voter registration was upheld by the canvass board, and properly so, her candidacy violated the clear language of the filing law.
She did not possess the qualifications for the office at the time of filing (she was still a Kitsap County resident on the day she filed), and regardless of any intent to move in the future, by her own admission did not yet reside in her future King County home.
I expect a court will rule her ineligible for this election, she will be removed from office, an Elections Director will have to be appointed to serve until the next County-wide election, which is this fall.
Interestingly, by this time, she will have been a resident long enough to qualify. So, does Huff run again for the office she was removed from, having just cost the county 3 million dollars in election administration costs?
I think I would have very much enjoyed parts of the job such as advocating for improvements in election laws, being the public spokesman for the department, visiting schools and organizations around the county to encourage people to register to vote and to vote, and developing the next generation of election technology. But not the day-to-day management of the office, the relentless pressure to meet an absolutely fixed schedule, the fighting with the council and executive for budget, and the dealing with personnel issues.
And I like to eat dessert first, too. :-)
Politics aside if the GOP actual plans on competing in King County a modicum of organization would be helpful.
Posted by: Giffy on February 3, 2009 09:49 PMIs an election really the best way to choose the most qualified person to do these things? Isn't that kind of like asking voters who should run the IT department?
This was the main argument against electing the elections director. Obviously it won't matter in the short run, but in the long run it is likely to give us a worse-run department. Oops.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2009 09:57 PMSims twisted a lot of arms to clear the field for Huff, convincing Lloyd Hara, Ellen Hansen, Jason Osgood, Ross Baker, and others to drop out. Republicans also convinced a number of candidates to drop out -- Joe Fain, Anthony Hemstad, David Doud, and others. But Pam Roach would not be convinced, no matter what anybody said.
The Democrats owe this victory to Pam Roach, and I will not be surprised if she collects a handsome reward -- appropriately separated in time so as to provide plausible deniability. The Democrats also owe the victory at least in part to Sen. Mike Hewitt and the Senate Republican Caucus, who apparently want rid of Pam badly enough that they were willing to fund the majority of her campaign rather than saving the money to try to win Senate campaigns in 2010, thereby enabling her to stay in the race, do some advertising, and draw away enough votes to ensure a Huff victory.
So, yeah, while there was some organization on the Republican side and it wasn't entirely a circular firing squad, the fact remains that Republicans aren't nearly the compliant collectivists that Democrats are.
Posted by: Toby Nixon on February 3, 2009 10:04 PMIt's in the clear language of the filing law. The candidate must meet the qualifications of the office at the time of filing. Not a week or two later. Not a day later. At the time of filing.
Considering that she will have won this election, but not by a majority vote, the Council would have to have strudel in their collective noodle in an election year to re-appoint her to the position she was just removed from for a massive campaign violation. All it takes is five votes to reject - ah, I see them now: at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...
Posted by: Advocate on February 3, 2009 10:11 PMAnd what you call being a compliant collectivist I call having a solid party organization.
Though honestly the stupidity of having all county level elections non-partisan, especially with no primary in this case, shares a fair bit of the blame.
Posted by: Giffy on February 3, 2009 10:17 PMHow can you say that when Huff got way more votes than Irons+Roach? And if Roach hadn't run, surely some of her wacko supporters would have voted for one of the other wacko candidates or stayed home.
Finally, I'm amused to hear you deriding the Democrats for being "compliant collectivists". At least nationally, Republicans are known for being better regimented than Democrats, and while I find that disappointing, I admire the Republicans for that rather than mocking them. You are allowed to be disappointed tonight, but you should give the Democrats credit rather than insulting them for figuring out how to win the game whose rules you wrote.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2009 10:25 PMWell, the people of Washington and of King County have decided we don't want such a concentration of power in the hands of any one individual, at either the county or state level. They have wisely recognized that in at least some executive officers there is a considerable amount of discretion to be exercised, priorities to be established, and culture to be set. We recognize how much our part-time legislators are influenced by the full-time executive branch officials and employees, and want our voice heard on both sides of those discussions. We want at least some of those executive-branch officials to be accountable directly to us, and not to a single all-powerful executive.
It may be inefficient, and it may be a challenge to find people who have both the policy positions AND the executive skills to serve well in these offices, but we do find them. The fact that it's not something that one person (me) wants to take on doesn't mean there aren't many others who are qualified and willing to serve.
Posted by: Toby Nixon on February 3, 2009 10:31 PMHuff got 44% of the vote. David Irons + Pam Roach equated to 36% of the vote. I don't understand how Pam Roach or the Senate Republican Caucus is at fault if the two combined would not have won. And, Toby, if you wanted party unity, why not ask David Irons to drop out of the race? Why is that Pam's fault, but not David's?
It's also my understanding that BIAW was behind the Senate Republican mailings for Roach. At least that's what the PI or Times said last week.
Posted by: Jigsaw on February 3, 2009 10:33 PMI am surprised that you would attack a Seated State Republican Senator like this, much less hint that she is somehow on the take in the backroom from the Ds?
"The Democrats owe this victory to Pam Roach, and I will not be surprised if she collects a handsome reward -- appropriately separated in time so as to provide plausible deniability."
Toby, what are you doing? You are skating on the thin ice of liable. (Making up lies about people in writing.) That is defamation of character. I would suggest place an apology here that you made an error and email Senator Roach the same apology. This is waaaay over the the line. I have always thought better of you than this.
In addition, this is YOUR fault. You put together legislation that required no primary, and an election at in a very short time period. Don't blame Pam, blame yourself.
Ruth Gibbs
YOU tried to game this system so that YOU would control the election director's office. And WE punked YOU at every step along the way.
Nobody buys your "nonpartisan" garbage, and nobody thinks you are "reformers."
#10 Toby nailed it. Along with the endorsement of Mr Simms, there was no bout a doubt it. That's just the way things are in good 'ol King Co. Sorry folks, guess it's a price we pay for living in the most beautiful plance on the planet. :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 4, 2009 05:27 AMNo way Roach wins in a runoff, same for Irons.
Face it folks, the county does not want Republicans anywhere near the levers of power. I am sure that Kempf's 6% would not jump ship if there was a runoff between Sherill and Irons.
Stefan, nice work. Stick to complaining about waiters next time. King County just put itself through a ridiculous and pointless exercise, thanks mostly to the whiners on this forum, who still think Rossi got railroaded when the Republican Secretary of State said that he did not.
Pam Roach. Keep running her. Please.
Posted by: DaveD on February 4, 2009 05:28 AMIt really doesn't matter how much the Republican party nationally is regimented if you have the bulk of the "4th estate" i.e. media (print, news, cable, network, entertainment, et al) actively lobbying for Democratic candidates and disseminating their views upon the uninformed public accordingly as an in kind contribution. When ethical journalism returns in America, we'll go back to having a largely healthy, viable 2 party system. If not, expect what we have here in the blue bubble of ignorance (WA state) to go National.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 4, 2009 05:52 AMWelcome Dean Logan, Phase II.
So, MEET THE NEW BOSS- SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.
Posted by: swatter on February 4, 2009 07:04 AMThe candidates you republicans touted lost and they were seriously flawed - a wife beater (Irons) and a psychopath (Roach).
One thing for sure - the republicans lose again and have the worst candidates.
Why can't republicans find bviable candidates?
Maybe because the moderates have all left the party. Competent, unbiased republicans like US Attorney John McKay are driven out of the party by partisan hacks. Republicans are seen as the whiner party, the party of Abramoff and corruption, and the party that is hypocritical on the budget (allowing Bush to spend a trillion on the wasted war in Iraq and another trillion on the bank soicalist bailout - while criticizing the jobs stimulus bill for ordinary Americans).
Posted by: correctnotright on February 4, 2009 07:34 AMYou simply can't add up the vote percentages for Irons and Roach to determine what the percentage would have been if Republicans had unified behind a single candidate. With two in the race, a significant number of people stayed on the sidelines, neither endorsing nor contributing to either candidate in order to avoid offending the other. This significantly reduced the total resources that would have otherwise been available -- and not just in terms of money.
What's done is done. In the end, our job doesn't change, no matter who is running the department; citizen advocates for integrity in elections will continue their oversight, just as is the responsibility of the citizens for every other function of government. At least now the director is accountable directly to the people rather than administration of elections being buried deep in the county bureaucracy and lost in the noise of everything else we try to hold the executive accountable for.
There is NO - I repeat NO evidence of any kind that David Irons EVER 'beat' his mother or 'pushed' her or whatever. She said that, but David is a good R and she is a hard core D with a grudge. In a court of law, without evidence, the judge and/or jury throws the case OUT!!!!!!!
I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America, a free country and one that believes people are innocent unless proven guilty.
In the case of Pam Roach - where do you get off calling anybody a psychopath? She is ALSO a GOOD Republican with an incredible voting record of legislation that benefits the people not special intersts. You seem obsessed with calling people names, all the while refusing to use your real name like I do.
I would suggest Stephan, that if you want to keep this blog, you make people give name, address, real email address and phone number. If they do not want to do so, they have a problem.
Now to you, Toby. I have and do still consider you a friend. You and Pam Roach have been friends for a long time. What you said about her is totally unacceptable, and NOT the way to win friends and infuence people.
I know you are upset because what you wanted did not fly, but like I said, I do not think you thought this out very well. Without a primary and in such an obscure time of the year, this was bound to happen.
If you truly wanted this to become the will of the PEOPLE, why do something that, and YOU perceive, should have been controlled and manipulated by D & R Party Bosses? THAT does not make sense.
Furthermore, you were at our Re-Organization meeting for the Rs correct? Pam Roach spoke and told EVERYONE she was running. Then a small group of people AFTER that got together and decided that David Irons had been annointed? I do not seem to recall that at that meeting there was a motion to endorse either Pam or David.
Why, because a lot of us believe that the grassroots PEOPLE have brains and can think for themselves. They do not need to be manipulated and controlled.
Let me ask you ANOTHER question. You say more $ and rescources. Let me see now, David got only 2 1/2% more of the vote than Pam Roach - 19.25 - 16.75. Huff got 44%. David spent an OBSCENE amount of $; the KCGOP, after maneuvering an endorsement for him (by voting ON the phone in an EMERGENCY meeting called with less than 4 hours notice and with less than a dozen people on the phone, no prior consideration, no discussion with the PCOs in the districts including myself and other highly respected people in the party; and the KCGOP machine ran phone banks and doorbelled for Irons.
NOW, with that said, your thinking is flawed. If all that $ was spent and all that effort, and David could only come up with 2 1/2% more than Pam Roach who spent way less and did NOT have an organized effort, and she got ONLY 2 1/2% less that David, I think you bet on the wrong candidate.
If you had put all that effort into Pam, what would she have obtained vote wise?
The one thing here that is SERIOUSLY flawed in the whole thing is: I have not hear ONE WORD that there was a professional POLL taken with the names of Roach, Irons, Clifford, Kempf and Huff. Why not? Why tell people to 'get out' when you have no idea if they should 'get in'? Why was not your name thrown in the mix of such a poll?
In politics, simple logic tells you that such a poll would give a VERY good indication of what was what, rather than telling Irons because he ran for King County exec and LOST that he should throw away his hard earned $.
I would have to say that how this whole thing was handled, at the behest of whomever was pulling the strings of the R machine, was a VERY psychopathic exercise in irrational politics.
It showed total naivete by the leaders who bought in to it. It has friends mad at friends, and has resulted in nothing but a big fat waste of $ and yes, again, time wasted by a lot of the R PCOs who are too naive to understand they are being manipulated.
I am personally tired of watching otherwise seemingly logical and sane people flopping around like chickens with their heads cut off because they refuse to listen to logic and are obsessed with power, manipulation and control.
I am not afraid to use my real name. I have nothing to hide.
Ruth Gibbs
Surprise, that's exactly what it was...a big waste of money to hold an election that most people did not bother to vote in. Who won? Oh it's the lady who currently holds the job, how about that. Seriously, this money could have been better spent paying down the country debt.
Nope Giffy, they were equally in the tank for the Democratic candidate, but had an egregious uphill climb to sell him to the American people.
"We have a viable two party system, its just that right now we are in a democratic phase."
When the watchdogs of Politics/Politicians become the lap dogs of a particular political party, (as I think we can all admit we witnessed with this past election), I'm not sure how people can equate that with the long term outlook for a "healthy, viable two party system" that I referenced above. It doesn't matter what your message is if it is being dispensed through the filter of the same media that has already eschewed their journalistic integrity and sided with the opposing view to your message.
I hope you're right about this just being a "democratic phase" we're going through as a country, but I think that's a bit of wishfull thinking if supposed professional NBC news reporter's are admitting on the air to be getting a "tingling up [their] leg" when a politician uses correct verbage while spewing platitudes in a prepared speech.
She took the energy out of this race. Ruth Gibbs, you suggested Irons should have bowed out so that Roach, the perpetual runner could again "run". At what point do you say to give someone else another shot?
There was no way and no how she would have got the director position in a full King County race.
However, if there weren't, there should have been a conversation between Iron and Roach. I assume from reading that maybe that conversation took place a few years ago and neither side likes the other. Republicans have to come together in this State.
Stefan is trying by providing a forum but the constant bickering is wearing thin and is frankly the reason you won't see me consider myself a Republican.
Posted by: swatter on February 4, 2009 12:57 PMRuth Gibbs
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on February 4, 2009 03:13 PMI get very frustrated. Our party never seems to think things through in an organized fashion. We fly by the seat of our pants. If we stop using emotions and popularity contests and start using LOGIC (the brains were put there for a purpose folks), then we would start winning.
As I said before. I am not interested in flopping around like a chicken with MY head cut off. We used to raise and kill chickens to eat when I was a little girl. Trust me, when the axe is applied, the chicken immediately loses its head and feels nothing, but the body flops all over the chicken yard. Hope you get the visual image.
We did the same thing in November. We passed an outrageously GOOD National Platform that said the conservative things we believed in a very positive manner, then the party cut off it own head, refused to say where we stood on anything, flopped all over the chicken yard and made such a mess, the electorate joined the donkeys!!!!
Obama did not get elected because HE has no clothes. He got elected because the Republicans strutted around saying look at our gorgeous robes (platform), when the truth is we are naked and look like fools.
Who follows anyone who says follow us, because this is what we believe and say, but this is what we allow, and this is what a lot of us do, so you can believe and do whatever you want, and we will bring you into the big tent (chicken yard) so you can get your head cut off and flop around with us.
We say, 'We know what we believe, but a lot of us don't believe it, but we want you to follow us anyway.'
'Don't follow the Democrats. THEY believe what they say, and do what they say, and you believe and do as they say, but WE are better so follow the Republicans.
Are you confused yet? So was the electorate. No wonder they voted RADICAL left instead of rational.
Who follows anyone as confused as this? The Bible says that if in battle the trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, the troops will be so confused they will not know who they are fighting for or with or whether to charge or retreat, so the chop off their own heads and flop! flop! flop!
And trust me - when the chickens flop, there is an obscene amount of blood that flies and spews everywhere.
I personally support the National Platform, support candidates who do, a stand for what the Republican Party stands for. Others can flop as much as they want. I have no intention of doing so.
Ruth Gibbs
The fact you guys are soul-searching is also a good thing. It should be done all the time and the magnitude of the defeat seems to have the desired effect.
Posted by: swatter on February 5, 2009 07:56 AM