Sound Politics: King County Council expected to punt on I-25

September 06, 2007

King County Council expected to punt on I-25

The County Council votes on I-25 tomorrow, Friday, morning at 8:30 at its offsite (and presumably off-camera) meeting in Mercer Island. The latest is that Bob Ferguson's laughably obscurant "alternative" ordinance doesn't have the votes. Expect a party line vote, with the 4 Rs supporting a charter change vote THIS YEAR, and the 5 Ds giving the voters the middle-finger, i.e. this November we vote whether to vote again in November 2008 whether to change the charter to create the elections director position. Seriously.

Again, the Democrats wouldn't delay the charter change vote UNLESS they're convinced their elections plan doesn't have voter approval, i.e. they believe:

The voters WILL pass I-25

A Council-backed candidate CAN'T get elected elections director

The winning candidate WON'T implement the controversial mail-only voting plan to which the Council is wedded.

If I'm wrong, why wouldn't the Council place the charter change on the 2007 ballot?

(I'm unavailable Friday. Discuss the Council vote in the comments)

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 06, 2007 09:40 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I think a single-shot winner-take-all election in February 2008 (or February 2009) would be giving voters the "middle finger". Imagine 10 or 20 candidates filing for this newly created position, and the winner being the top voter-getter, elected with only 15% or 20% of the vote? And maybe with a 20% to 30% voter turnout, instead of a 50% to 85% turnout, to boot?

The Elections Director should be elected, but in a November election, with a top two primary to narrow the field. Not in February, and not without a primary.

Posted by: Richard Pope on September 6, 2007 09:47 PM

2. "The voters WILL pass I-25"
Probably, then dozens of candidates will file for the office. Hell I might throw my hat in the ring as it looks like good odds for a great job.

"A Council-backed candidate CAN'T get elected elections director"

Why not. The council is democratically elected and so is the executive. In fact given the obscurity of the post out side of the few thousand or so that really care, publicity will be key. the candidate who can garner institutional support and hence money and exposure will likely win.

"The winning candidate WON'T implement the controversial mail-only voting plan to which the Council is wedded."

I am pretty sure they WON'T have a choice in the matter. The Council still sets policy. Electing a bureaucrat WON'T change that. At a minimum the Council could defund polling places leaving mail the only option. At a maximum they could seek legal relief compelling the Auditor to carry out the mandated function.

Posted by: Giffy on September 6, 2007 10:21 PM

3. Stefan asks: "Why wouldn't the Council place the charter change on the 2007 ballot?

Um, because they think that it's a bad idea to elect the elections director, especially without a primary in February?

Posted by: Bruce on September 6, 2007 10:26 PM

4. Giffy -- you're knowledgeable about such things, and you seem to think I'm wrong about my reading of the Council's thought process, so please answer my question: If I'm wrong, why wouldn't the Council place the charter change on the 2007 ballot?

Also, "Hell I might throw my hat in the ring as it looks like good odds for a great job."

Please do. The more candidates who split the Democrat vote, the better!

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 6, 2007 10:26 PM

5. Stefan blurts, "The more candidates who split the Democrat vote, the better!"

I guess Stefan was just kidding when he praised I-25 for taking politics out of the elections office by making the office non-partisan. That Stefan! What a riot!

Posted by: Bruce on September 6, 2007 10:33 PM

6. Stefan, I think the primary issue is an important one. If we are going to do this, and it seems to be an near eventuality, lets do it right. I don't really like the idea of a candidate for such an important office winning by 10, 20, or even 30%. Let's have a primary were we can narrow it down to two, hopefully serious, candidates, that the public can then pick.

There is also the issue of putting someone of unknown qualification on the job right before a major presidential election. Not to mention that such a major change should not be subject to a rather truncated campaign cycle.

And since the race is nonpartisan, it seems that the vote will simply be split. :)

Posted by: Giffy on September 6, 2007 10:38 PM

7. Giffy:

There is also the issue of putting someone of unknown qualification on the job right before a major presidential election. Not to mention that such a major change should not be subject to a rather truncated campaign cycle.

You keep making my points for me, Giffy! Why do you assume there would be a "major change"? It sounds like you're convinced, as I believe the D Councilmembers are convinced, that Sherril Huff couldn't get elected!

Bruce: "I guess Stefan was just kidding when he praised I-25 for taking politics out of the elections office by making the office non-partisan"

If you think I ever said anything to the effect that I-25 would "take politics out of the elections office" then your head is full of sand.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 6, 2007 10:56 PM

8. Stefan, by major change I mostly meant going from an appointed to an elected auditor. Assuming the council acts tomorrow that leaves less then a month to consider the issue.

Though it is unclear whether Huff would run, or could even get elected. Not that she is not qualified, but I have no knowledge of her campaign skills or political acrament, which as I am sure you'll agree is quite important in such a race.

If your right and she can't then a brand new director would certainly be a major change, and perhapses better suited for after the 08 election.

Posted by: Giffy on September 6, 2007 11:07 PM

9. I would add that a lot depends on who runs. I am sure our good friend Richard Pope, assuming he is unsuccessful in his bid to unseat Jane Hague would run, but I am not sure who else. It seems like it might be a good stepping stone to Secretary of State when Reed inevitably retires, so thats likely to attract some attention. Off the top of my head I would think former Councilmembers Sullivan or Edwards might get in the race, along with some of the Washblogers concerned about such things. None of those really have the name recognition at this point save maybe the former councilmembers to make it a blow out.

Stefan, I am pretty sure you said your not considering it correct? I would be curious to see who you think might go for it.

Posted by: Giffy on September 6, 2007 11:13 PM

10. Giffy- Interesting: The people who you think would run are all professional politicians; none have any professional elections management experience. So presumably the winning politician would hire a person like Huff, Logan, etc. to do the real work. In other words, we'd have an appointed elections manager, just as we do now. Only instead of being accountable to the county council and county executive (who also run the rest of the county government), the elections manager would be accountable to a newly created political office that would cost money and provide no added value. What a great idea! I can't imagine why the county council wouldn't put this on a fast track!! They must be corrupt!!!

Posted by: Bruce on September 6, 2007 11:33 PM

11. California had 60 gubernatorial candidates. They seemed to get the one they wanted.

Posted by: swatter on September 7, 2007 08:03 AM

12. Isn't this about Stefan's 10th post with the same points and arguments? Is the strategy to say something enough times that maybe people will believe it?

Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 7, 2007 08:44 AM

13. @10, Exactly. The one thing I agree with Stefan on is that government has its failings. However, I don't think the solution is more democracy (initiatives, more elected positions, etc.). I think the solution is to make better use of the democracy we have. We need to put good people in government. That of course is harder and more time consuming, but in the end putting band aids on a few symptoms of a larger problem isn't going to help anything and might just make things worse. Especially since the problem is an uninformed and apathetic electorate.

@11, because one of them was a millionaire who could yell over the crowd. I doubt anyone is going to spend that kind of money to be an elections director.

Posted by: Giffy on September 7, 2007 09:05 AM

14. Hey!

Just to go completely off the subject, what ever happened to the Sharkansky Vs. Waitress thread?

Posted by: Matthew J. Crane on September 7, 2007 09:35 AM

15. Hey!

Just to go completely off the subject, what ever happened to the Sharkansky Vs. Waitress thread?

Posted by: Matthew J. Crane on September 7, 2007 09:36 AM

16. Hey!

Just to go completely off the subject, what ever happened to the Sharkansky Vs. Waitress thread?

Posted by: Matthew J. Crane on September 7, 2007 09:37 AM

17. Hey Bill do you an original thought on the matter or are you simply complaining again?

Posted by: Smokie on September 7, 2007 10:07 AM

18. "Isn't this about Stefan's 10th post with the same points and arguments? Is the strategy to say something enough times that maybe people will believe it?"

I agree with Smokie. Bill, every time Stefan makes "the same points and arguments", you also return with your "same points and arguments", except that you make them several times within the thread.

What's the difference?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 7, 2007 11:39 AM