The Seattle City Council voted this week to suppress dissent:
In an effort to save money, the Seattle City Council Monday approved reducing the maximum number of words in this year's city voter pamphlet and pushed for a livelier publication by eliminating rules that prohibit candidates from mentioning their opponents.What's interesting about this is that the only city initiative on the ballot for the September election is the so-called $117 million "Families and Education Levy" proposal, which was created by the Mayor and City Council. [The Monorail Recall initiative is expected to appear on the November ballot]. The city has dedicated hundreds of staff hours and other public resources to developing and promoting the F & E levy proposal. The voters' guide will contain the entire text of the initiative (2,962 words), a "ballot title" summary of the initiative (79 words) and a statement from the City Attorney (258 words). The ballot title and City Attorney statement are both favorable to the proposal in a misleading sort of way. The proponents also get a 200 word argument for the levy, and a 75 word rebuttal to the opposition argument. The opposition gets only a 200 word argument and a 75 word rebuttal to the proponents. 3,574 words to 275. Not to mention all the other city resources that are working for the proponents, but not for the opposition. Indeed, the Families and Education Levy is the only city issue on the September ballot and the only reason the city is spending thousands of dollars to print and mail a September voters' guide in the first place. [I'll post the exact cost of the voters' guide once I get a reply to my inquiry from the city elections agency]. It wouldn't save $10,000 this election to trim 550 words from the voters' guide. In fact, all the report says is that the cost impact is $10,000 per year [The elections agency explained that this was an average over the last several years]. In 2004 there are three elections in Seattle (February special, September primary, November general). So it seems that the incremental cost per initiative is somewhere in the $1,000 - $5,000 range. That seems like a perfectly reasonable price to pay to give the opponents twice as much space to educate the public about a $117 million tax increase. You have to wonder whether the City Council is afraid of what those opponents might bring up and wants to stifle their dissent, or simply doesn't have the integrity to ensure that we have an adequate debate."We welcome the hurly-burly of political speech," said Councilman Jim Compton.
Council members made it clear that they want the full word count restored next year for candidate statements and initiative arguments. The Seattle Ethics and Election Commission said it could save about $10,000 a year on average if it could reduce the size of the pamphlet.
This year, the principal statements for initiatives will be limited to 200 words, and the rebuttal may be no longer than 75 words. Candidate statements would be limited to 150 words. There are no City Council elections this year.
A more informed electorate was the argument for restoring the number of words candidates will have next year to 400. Initiative statements will also be allowed a maximum of 400 words, with a rebuttal of 150 words.
I understand this particular issue very well. I'm a member of the group that is writing the official opposition statement for voters' guide (along with fellow Sound Politics contributor Andy MacDonald). It's tough enough in this town to have to explain why we shouldn't spend another $117 million to re-up a program that has a politically-correct name, but has been a scandalous failure for 14 years and has slid by all this time without adequate press scrutiny. But to do so in only 275 words instead of the traditional 550 makes our job that much harder.
Deliberate or not, the effect is a suppression of dissent. And I thought that liberal Seattlites only blamed Ashcroft for that sort of thing.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 28, 2004 10:08 PM | Email This