This is an idea whose time should have come in Seattle long ago. I am a member of the group sponsoring the current "hybrid" proposal to which you refer, Jordan.

Seattle prides itself on its responsive and inclusionary politics. Yet it remains among the few major cities in the country which does not elect its council members by district. The reason for district elections in a city is the same one behind U.S. Senate and House elections at federal level and district legislative elections at state level. It is to assure that distinct geographic constituencies are
adequately represented. We do not elect Senators and Members of Congress, or state legislators, nationally or statewide. Nor should city council members be elected citywide.

You make many good points, Jordan. Running citywide is expensive and removes from contention many candidates who cannot raise big money
(which largely comes from groups with cityhwide financial clout).
It also makes it difficult for residents of Ballard, West Seattle, Queen Anne, Rainier Valley, or other Seattle neighborhoods to get responsiveness from city government.

The argument usually advanced for council members elected wholly at large, as at present, is that they will make large-minded, greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number decisions unfettered by the parochial interests of particular neighborhoods. We all know how that has worked out in practicality. Time for well intended but sometimes provincial and parochial Seattle to learn what most other American cities have learned over a couple centuries. Legislative bodies are meant to represent defined constituencies, within the whole, which otherwise might not be heard or receive proper attention.

It's clear that the current crop of council members, with a few exceptions, do not give a whit what their constituents think -- they're supporting a new sports arena that the majority in Seattle do not want. Especially Sodo and West Seattle are ill-served by these so-called "public servants" who would rather bow and scrape to multimillionaires and billionaires, and give in to the minority but loud, shrill and "anyone who disagrees with us hates sports" voices of those think the arena is a good deal when in fact it is not -- at least not for the city and its taxpayers.

So if districts will make the council more representative of the populace, by all means do it. In the meantime, hold to the fire the feet of those who so blithely ignore real needs for public funds in favor of an entertainment complex that many people won't ever attend because they can't afford the price of entry -- Seattle elitism at its finest.

Early in the process of developing the specifics of the Seattle Districts Now 2013 proposal, the Seattle School Board electoral model was considered (primary election by districts, general election city-wide). This model was rejected because it does not effectively resolve one of the main problems you agree needs to be addressed--reduction in power and influence of money on our government ("curtail the role of money in local elections").

A city-wide general election such as the school district model puts the money barrier back in place notwithstanding a district primary. Moreover, primaries are now held in early August, and have very low turnout. Such a plan retains the advantage for those with city-wide connections as opposed to roots in the district. Think about it: Do the current school board members have any sense of representing their districts? This is not a recipe for effective local representation--it would in fact create a "hopeless muddle."

Mr Royer states: "On the minus side, electing councilmembers by district creates a smaller focus for the candidate. The issues they will be most concerned with will be specific to the district, with some exceptions." And he later brings up the dreaded "NIMBYs".

In fact, the districts are arguably quite large, and all encompass a variety of political terrain - from dense urban villages to single family zones, both wealthy and poor communities (and in those in between), parts suffering from lack of transit and places with future transit plans, both well-loved amenities and failing infrastructure, and so one. The implication that there is a mono-culture in any district, or one neighborhood's interests will trump another is unlikely. In fact, if anything, the districts will have a lot in common - the need for adequate and complete services and amenities, safe walkable neighborhoods, economic development, growing communities, etc. This will reinvigorate interest with, and lead to improvement in, how the City meets the needs of it's populace and plans for our future. For too long there has been a focus on the supposed needs of this future population or meeting the needs of outside interests rather than the addressing interests of the extant population and encompassing their vision for growing Seattle into the future.

Mt Royer goes on to say "It will be even more challenging than it is now to locate regional facilities in the city that have negative externalities, real or perceived. Many also fear that more NIMBY-like districts will hamstring the ability of the city to develop the kind of density that is needed to focus growth in the urban areas."

In fact, looking at the Urban Village strategy and the underlying (and aging) neighborhood plans, and the fact that these same communities in the last round of Comprehensive Planning took on the challenge for growth and density, belie this assertion. In fact many communities have already met and exceeded growth targets. Whether it be the environmentalists, public transit advocates or urbanistas, their voice can be heard at their district level as well. In fact, that is where they should be developing their constituency rather than practicing the insider trading that goes on today. What will result is hopefully a common chorus that will be heard across the city. What will be lost from today is that LACK of a local perspective. This will lead to compromise, fine tuning, and what for many "NIMBYs" is the better solution (that is if we can get past the name-calling and determine what their issues actually are). Because more balanced voices will be at the table, what will be lost is the attention lavished today on certain parts of the city or narrow constituencies served at the expense of others. And from these quarters is where we will hear the loudest complaint about the Districts system.

Finally Mr Royer concludes: "This history of district elections also suggests that, once elected, these councilmembers are more difficult to dislodge". In fact, far from it. The collective will of the communities represented, along with a lower bar for entry into politics, will make dislodging councilmembers that do not fairly serve their district OR the city to be removed. Something far easier than where we stand today.

With District Elections, political debate will be broadened - both in the home district and in Council chambers. Which is something that is most lacking at City Hall today.

(and btw, i would call them the "neo-Liberal Elite")

Currently I get to vote for all nine council positions. This plan would reduce my vote to only three council positions. Six council positions could be held by the worst politicians in the history of the world, and I would not be able to vote against them. This reduces the power of my vote.

I do not wish the power of my vote to be reduced. Today all nine council members have to at least make a feeble attempt to get my vote. I am not discarded by any council members as not being in their district.

There are other reasons I do not like this district plan; cheaper election means cheaper bought politicians, five council members could team up against four and take everything for their districts-- there would be nothing the four council members or their constituents could do about it, the insular districts make backroom crony politics more likely--- a council member only has to worry about being elected in his/her district, the council would more than likely devolve into a group of cliques all trying to outdo each other with pork spending in their districts, all I see is non-stop money grabbing, all I see is special interests gaining more power.

But, the reduction in my voting power is a non-starter for me. I wish to vote for all council members, not only one third of them. This is not a good plan, and there is no need for this change.

I see this change to do the exact opposite of reducing the power of your vote. The power of your vote is magnified by 7, albeit for one councilmember. For the two at large seats it remains the same.

And unless you live in isolation from other voters in the city, citywide influence on issues of common importance is easier than ever (via email, social networks, etc). For example, you don't like the ArenaCo vote. With Districts, its a matter of educating and mobilizing your network citywide to pressure THEIR councilmember on the issue. Because their vote is 7 times more influential in their district.

Now, no one is accountable. And we have a lot of behind the scenes horsetrading and 9-0 votes.

The arena deal is not a great one for the City. Will any councilmember lose an election over it? Unlikely.

Describe a scenario where councilmembers "team up" against parts of the City? The Mayor then would also be teaming up by signing the legislation. How would that work as a matter of course? How is that different than what would happen in today's system...

No, the wealthy special interests will control the council members elected with districts. It will make no difference. My district councilmember would have no more concern for me, than the current councilmembers. My vote would not be magnified at all. My vote would be reduced. I would only have say in three of nine elections. That means my vote is reduced.

The district proposal does not take lobbying, or any money out of council elections. There is nothing in the proposal to do this. The money politics will not go away. The backroom mechinations will continue. The same money would go toward the district elections.

I do not think that integrity, or city spirit, would prevent district councilmembers from ganging up on other district councilmembers; especially, if a councilmember(s) has views that are contrary to the majority, the majority councilmembers personally dislike the councilmember(s); or the money behind the majority councilmembers tell them to get rid of that councilmember(s). This would be easy to do. The majority councilmembers bad mouth the targeted councilmember(s), and vote against anything for the targeted councilmember(s) district. Or, ganged up majority councilmembers vote for pork after pork for their district, and nothing for the others.. The voters in the ganged up majority districts think that their councilmember is great, they get re-election easy, every time. The voters in the other districts have no recourse at all. Things like this, and others, would happen. Even with the at-large seats.

Right now all nine councilmembers are accountable. All nine of them have to stand for re-election before all voters of Seattle. This district plan would add no real accountability as the number of voters would still be in the high tens of thousands, and the same money would be financing the district councilmembers. The reduction of a Seattle citizens right to vote in council elections from all nine to three, reduces not only a citizens vote, but also reduces the accountability of councilmembers in other districts to that citizen.

We all know it is the money, and the lobbying that brings bad governance. Changing the form without taking out the money and lobbying, changes nothing as to the bad governance engendered by money, and lobbying. We would end up with the same governmental product, only with districts a citizen would not be allowed to vote the bastards out. This proposal shuts the citizen out of influence on the Seattle City Council.

No, the wealthy special interests will control the council members elected with districts. It will make no difference. My district councilmember would have no more concern for me, than the current councilmembers. My vote would not be magnified at all. My vote would be reduced. I would only have say in three of nine elections. That means my vote is reduced.

The district proposal does not take lobbying, or any money out of council elections. There is nothing in the proposal to do this. The money politics will not go away. The backroom mechinations will continue. The same money would go toward the district elections.

I do not think that integrity, or city spirit, would prevent district councilmembers from ganging up on other district councilmembers; especially, if a councilmember(s) has views that are contrary to the majority, the majority councilmembers personally dislike the councilmember(s); or the money behind the majority councilmembers tell them to get rid of that councilmember(s). This would be easy to do. The majority councilmembers bad mouth the targeted councilmember(s), and vote against anything for the targeted councilmember(s) district. Or, ganged up majority councilmembers vote for pork after pork for their district, and nothing for the others.. The voters in the ganged up majority districts think that their councilmember is great, they get re-election easy, every time. The voters in the other districts have no recourse at all. Things like this, and others, would happen. Even with the at-large seats.

Right now all nine councilmembers are accountable. All nine of them have to stand for re-election before all voters of Seattle. This district plan would add no real accountability as the number of voters would still be in the high tens of thousands, and the same money would be financing the district councilmembers. The reduction of a Seattle citizens right to vote in council elections from all nine to three, reduces not only a citizens vote, but also reduces the accountability of councilmembers in other districts to that citizen.

We all know it is the money, and the lobbying that brings bad governance. Changing the form without taking out the money and lobbying, changes nothing as to the bad governance engendered by money, and lobbying. We would end up with the same governmental product, only with districts a citizen would not be allowed to vote the bastards out. This proposal shuts the citizen out of influence on the Seattle City Council.

The method we use to elect school board directors - district primary then citywide general election has most of the same barriers as the current system. When I ran for school board last year, I was able to make it through the primary, but the near-necessity of doing a mailing was a barrier. The incumbent outraised me 6 to 1. Although the margin of victory was small, that's not much consolation when the winner takes all.

Also, I don't think the school board directors give much thought to what the constituents in their districts think. Mostly, they don't have to. I believe they'd have a stronger allegiance to their districts if the election stayed district for the general.

This doesn't mean they would ignore citywide issues in favor of local issues. Policy work is citywide. The budget (the document that tells us what these folks really think about policies), I would hope, would extend resources out into the districts to a greater degree than presently occurs with the Lesser Outer Seattle Territories - what Richard Dysterhuis calls L.O.S.T. way out there Seattle.

The idea that 2 of the councilmembers would be at-large - I realize that's a compromise as Toby mentioned - but it's a hybrid with a variety of perils embedded. I think the time has come for district elections and I wish the 2 at-large idea could be eliminated, but I imagine the train has left the station on that one.

Kate, yes, the 7 and 2 plan is a compromise, but a brilliant one. The city divides very neatly into 7 districts. West Seattle is a single district by itself. SE Seattle is also a single district. North of the Ship Canal are three districts. Look at the map and anyone can see the logic behind it.

I have to laugh at critics who claim that citywide issues would be neglected. By definition, citywide issues are of interest to citizens citywide. District councilmembers who neglect citywide issues do so at their political peril.

I live in one district and work downtown in another district. I care very much about the wellbeing of downtown, and if my district councilmember ignores downtown because it's in another district, he/she can count on my vigorous opposition come the next election.

1 of 2

Lots of big problems identified here with both models (at-large voting, and by-district voting).

Maybe we should change it up, and have the state legislature give to the city what the legislators gave to Sound Transit – an appointive board.

Why not get rid of peoples’ power to vote for and against city legislators? Only three of Sound Transit’s boardmembers were voted onto its board, and the other 15 seats are filled by political appointees.

It’s not like RTA boardmembers wield less power than city councilmembers. For example, the state legislature delegated to regional transit authority boardmembers powers that exceed those city councilmembers can wield, including these:

- The unchecked discretionary power to select where train lines and stations are to be located across three counties. Pursuant to this power the RTA board unilaterally determines the locations for new train rights-of-way, tunnels, and stations – irrespective of county and city boundaries – and then implements those determinations merely by adopting its resolutions.

- The powers to design and impose a new financing plan to cover unlimited billions of dollars of capital and operating costs for a series of new transit systems. For example, this appointive board was delegated the power to determine how many tens of billions of dollars of regressive tax to impose. The board of Sound Transit establishes those particular new legal obligations on the public via the security terms in its numerous general obligation bond sale contract resolutions. Those new local government taxing policies are completely unrelated to the requirements of any of the spending budgets the board enacts. The amount of taxing those new local laws entail exceeds by billions of dollars the reasonable and budgeted needs of that government.

- The power to pick and choose by enacting resolutions which of several types of taxes to impose on millions of people for decades. One example of how those political appointees use that power is discussed above in this thread. On September 10, 2009 the Sound Transit boardmembers set a new tax collection policy for that government. They adopted a new local law that contained an irrevocable pledge to confiscate sales tax throughout the district at or near a .9% rate through 2039. They did that via Resolution 2009-16. That new local law will result in that government hauling in about $22 billion of regressive tax from this region merely as security for a $300 million bond. Voters did not approve that new local law.

- The discretionary power to issue unlimited billions of dollars of its own debt securities. In Sound Transit’s case, that long-term bonding is secured by irrevocable pledges to confiscate scores of billions of dollars of Sound Transit general taxes, for an intergenerational time frame. During the last quarter of 2011 the amount of additional long-term debt securities staff suggested to the board it should pass some future resolutions to issue increased by over $1.5 billion (from $5.3 billion to $7 billion). The increased tax costs to the public of those additional projected bond sales will be in the range of tens of billions of dollars. Whoever the appointees comprising that board are over the next fifteen years will be enacting the new local laws (via their resolutions) to bring about those debt issuances. The voters will not be consulted regarding the amount of bonds or the associated tax costs of financing those bonds.

- The unchecked discretionary power to determine how much bus and train service to provide to the public, and the power to change those amounts at will. Voters never are consulted about service levels.

2 of 2

Here are some more of the significant legislative powers that were delegated to the appointive boards of regional transit authorities:

- The unchecked discretionary power to use eminent domain to take thousands of private properties of the board’s choosing (including partial interests in private properties), to the same extent and by the same means as the legislative bodies of cities of the first class (RCW 81.112.080). Voters never are consulted about which private property interests are to be condemned.

- The unchecked power to disregard any and all of the county and municipal land use regulations across multiple local jurisdictions when that appointive board establishes train line locations and selects station sites via its resolutions. Voters never are asked about which local land use regulations the RTA should disregard.

- The unchecked power to design, build, and manage permanently a series of bus and train systems. Even when voters approve stations in the system plans (e.g. the First Hill station referenced in the 1996 plan) the board has full discretion to not build them. The board has the power to set all the policies in this area.

- The power to establish and maintain an autonomous police force of statutory law enforcement officers (to the same extent as can the legislatures of cities of the first class in this state – this is one power Seattle’s councilmembers have that is coextensive with what was delegated to RTA boardmembers). The board does these things without even mentioning them in the ballot measures.

- The power to set fares to impose on the public, irrespective of any budget limits or other caps. The board does these things without even seeking guidance from voters in the ballot measures. This is a power Seattle’s councilmembers have that is coextensive with what was delegated to RTA boardmembers.

- The powers to define infractions of its regulations, and both set and impose fines on people that courts will enforce for such infractions. The board does these things without even seeking guidance from voters in the ballot measures. This is a power Seattle’s councilmembers have that is coextensive with what was delegated to RTA boardmembers.

- The power to set unlimited spending budgets on dozens of capital projects (including projects with multi-billion dollar costs). The board does these things irrespective of the capital cost estimates in the ballot measures.

- The power to form and use LIDs to assess property owners and sell bonds backed by those LID assessments (RCW 81.112.150). The board has these powers and it does not even mention them in the ballot propositions. This is a power Seattle’s councilmembers have that is coextensive with what was delegated to RTA boardmembers.

- The power to create public corporations to engage in sale and leaseback transactions (RCW 81.112.320). The board has these powers and it does not even mention them in the ballot propositions. This is a power Seattle’s councilmembers have that is coextensive with what was delegated to RTA boardmembers.

- The power to create and fund massive reserve accounts of unlimited size that to fill with public money, including tax revenues (currently Sound Transit holds over $1 billion in investments for its reserve accounts).

All the legislature would need to do is change the city’s enabling statutes so they would say the same thing as Sound Transit’s statute RCW 81.112.040 says.

So what’s the consensus – is voting for local legislators an antique notion at odds with our fast-paced modern world?

Why not let the King County Executive appoint Seattle’s councilmembers? That is the person who appoints more than a majority of Sound Transit’s boardmembers. Why shouldn’t he (or she) appoint people to the Seattle city council as well? The city council's powers are limited by state law, and most of what it does is administer and set new policies in the areas like those listed above in which Sound Transit's boardmembers set new local laws.

I’m particularly interested in the legal aspects of our civic life and institutions. Does anyone see any problems with this proposal from a US Constitutional law perspective?

@ south_downtown writes:

“Now, no one is accountable.”

Well that’s wrong. Are you new to town, “south”?

Shortly after the campaign donations from Frank Colacurcio were disclosed city council incumbent Jim Compton had to resign and the people of Seattle voted out of office both Judy Nicastro and Heidi Wills.

Seattle city legislators ARE accountable to the people. That is because they have to stand for election and re-election to those offices.

You understand the Sound Transit boardmembers are not accountable to the people here, right “south”? You support Sound Transit’s structure. Why? It’s unconstitutional, and it is generating terrible financing plans that rely on grossly excessive regressive taxing.

The entire council should be elected by districts. It’s at least a start in providing better representation for the entire business of the entire city rather than just a few special interests and affluent neighborhoods. Maintaining any at-large positions only dilutes the purpose of the change. The full council can still administer to city-wide issues while individually serving their districts. It would provide the public (remember them) with a specific place to initiate business with the city and a specific place to expect and receive a response. Hopefully the days are passed when new council members were praised for how quickly they would roll up their sleeves, get in line, and start voting in lock-step with their colleagues. Subordination of government to special interests is the biggest problem we have today.

What a waste.

Unfortunately, it takes a once-in-generation scandal like strippergate to dislodge failing councilmembers in Seattle's existing system. And it doesn't get done by vigorous candidates doorbelling the voters, rather it's done by dialing for dollars to raise money from (hopefully) more legitimate sources.

I look forward to the opportunity to see council candidates on my doorstep or at a coffee hour in a neighbor's living room. That's a much better way make an intelligent choice on voting day. Today all we see of council candidates are on those expensive full-color mailers that fill our mailboxes.

You've piqued my interest . . . who are the "failing councilmembers" that voters failed to "dislodge"? What did they do that warrants this "failing" grade you've tagged them with?

You also are a big Sound Transit supporter, and former employee. You understand the Sound Transit boardmembers are not accountable to the people here, right Roger Pence? Why do you think that is such a great form of government? It is unconstitutional, and that board is producing terrible financing plans that rely on grossly excessive regressive taxing.

There is nothing in this proposal that mandates "doorbelling". Don't say "Oh, but it will happen". You have no idea what would happen. The districts would still have about 80,000 citizens. So, you think candidates are going to "doorbell" 80,000 citizens? They won't.

The "doorbelling" statements are unfounded.

Nope, nothing in the proposal mandates doorbelling. Just like nothing in the existing system mandates raising mega-dollars to pay for all those slick color mailers that fill our mailboxes every city election. Your point is irrelevant.

The districts will have an average of 137 precincts, a number that a typical campaign team can easily cover in a few months. Council districts enable a different style of campaigning, one not as dependent on raising huge sums of money. It allows shoeleather to substitute for money.

No mandate for doorbelling, no mandate for coffee at your neighbors house. My point is correct. Perhaps, because my point is correct, and conflicts with what you wish citizens to believe, you are compelled to call it irrelevant. How lame.

There is nothing in the proposal that mandates a "campaign team" covering anything. A "campaign team' is not a Seattle City Council candidate anyway, is it?

There is nothing in the proposal that mandates that SCC candidates not use mailers, is there? There is no ban on mailers, is there?

The district candidates will raise large amounts of money from the same special interests.The proposal does not ban "contributions", or lobbying, does it?

The only thing this proposal does is reduce the power of a Seattle citizen's vote.

Everybody understands how none of Sound Transit’s employees, lawyers, financial beneficiaries, board members, PR firms or political benefactors will go to bat for that government, right?

There's a good explanation for such a lack of visible, accountable support: Sound Transit’s structure violates what the US Constitution requires in terms of accountability when it comes to local governments.

Something like 31,000 lawyers are in this state. Let’s see one of them try to argue Sound Transit has a legal structure here, at Crosscut.

Let’s have some lengthy postings here from the Sound Transit fans.

It’s free.

The usual posters and the usual content providers should write a handful of paragraphs on that subject and post them here. It’d be great to have some posts on the topics of whether or not Sound Transit is both legal and doing a good job for people here. That would inform the debate about possibly restructuring the process by which the city's legislators are elected.

The subject here is District Elections for Seattle City Council, but since Crosscut editors are tolerating your wildly off-topic rants this week, let me kindly make a suggestion. If you sincerely believe the Board of Directors of Sound Transit is unconstitutional as structured by the State Legislature, then by all means you should challenge it in a court of law. A man of your vast legal knowledge and scholarship should be able to make the case very effectively. Please, go for it. And let us know how it turns out.

The subject here is District Elections for Seattle City Council

The topic of this story Roger is whether or not the method for electing representatives of the people to the Seattle City Council should change. Shouldn't the model used for selecting Sound Transit's boardmembers be considered as well? You may not like that suggestion, but it is relevant to this issue.

by all means you should challenge [Sound Transit's structure] in a court of law.

I've got a better idea. When the US Supreme Court came out with that 1967 opinion New York's state legislature didn't wait for a lawsuit to be filed -- it respected the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court and changed the county enabling statutes. By 1970 Suffolk County had a directly-elected board. I propose our state legislature should act responsibly and make the same change, to bring that municipality into compliance with what the constitution requires. There's no need for a lawsuit. We know that because no advocate for Sound Transit has even tried to posit a cogent legal argument to the effect that the state's delegation of broad legislative powers to an appointive board was legal.

Of course Sound Transit's lawyers want a lawsuit -- they'd get hefty fees.

Let's see if we can't be more efficient about this. Let's see if there's a legit legal argument that might justify the state legislature's failure to abide by the limit the US Supreme Court addressed in that 1967 opinion. If there's a good legal argument that Sound Transit's structure complies with what the constitution requires then no lawsuit would be needed.

You were a "community outreach coordinator" for Sound Transit several years back, Roger. You know as well as I this is a very real problem. Nobody should have to file a lawsuit to get a response from this local government about what law might justify its unique structure.

Why don't you try explaining why Sound Transit's employees (and its army of lawyers) are failing to disclose the law they believe might justify that municipality's entirely unorthodox structure? Do you think there's some legitimate reason for keeping that information secret and away from the public?

If the 1992 statutes are proper, there would be no downside to Des Brown logging in here and explaining why. Do you agree, Roger?

Poor individuals and struggling families are whom Sound Transit’s taxing is meant to target. That taxing for transit is far worse here than anywhere else in the world.

This year Sound Transit will confiscate about $600,000,000 (six hundred million dollars) of regressive tax revenue. That amount is set by Sound Transit law to increase, year over year, until 2039.

That is because of some sub-standard and abnormal bond sale contract security terms the unaccountable appointees comprising Sound Transit’s board went ahead and rubberstamped.

Here’s what those appointees were thinking: “Why not? I’m unaccountable to people, and the financial beneficiaries will pay me off!”

Thing is though, the US Constitution demands that Americans retain their powers to vote policy-setters both on to and off of governing boards and councils. There’s a constitutional limit: people have the right to vote in to and out of office those who would set new local laws. Our legislature disregarded that limit on its powers in 1992 when it delegated legislative powers to the appointive boards of RTAs.

Given the abusive taxing practices of that municipality, a Sound Transit agent should log in and address a couple of issues relating to its purported constitutionality. That’s the least its agents owe the millions of people here.

I have disagreed with R on Beacon Hill about Sound Transit for years, but I'm 100% on the same page with him requesting that Crossrip stop endlessly repeating himself, and put up or shut up regarding his so-called legal "claims" against Sound Transit.

Find another record, dude. The one you keep playing is broken.

Find another record, dude. The one you keep playing is broken.

I've cited a US Supreme Court opinion that prohibits state legislators from doing exactly what ours did in 1992 -- delegating legislative powers to municipalities with appointive boards. If you really think that "record" is "broken", explain why.

...and @ jhande, while I don't think district elections are perfect, as someone who has run several citywide election campaigns I think it is a stone cold fact that lesser financed/grassroots candidates would be a lot more competitive if they didn't have to pay to advertise to the entire Seattle electorate. Running a Downtown Cabal crony out of office under a district system is a lot more doable for a neighborhood candidate under a district system than it is an at-large one. Being able to vote in all 9 races ain't worth much if the downtown-friendly one wins each and every time....

Nothing stops the same cronies putting up the same crony candidate in a district election. Shoot, the big money could spend the same amount in a district election as they do today, this magnifies the big money. So, if one is a scoundrel crony, then one budgets for ones political crony budget. Ones political contribution budget for 2013 for Seattle City Council races in a citywide voting system could be 50,000 dollars (12,500 a candidate--four up for election; which would be about 2-2.5 cents per Seattle citizen in a citywide election. A district election with districts with about 80,000 people would increase the power of the crony scoundrels money to about 15 cents a district citizen. District elections amplify crony money.

This proposal does not prevent any Cabal, and provides incentive to start Cabals. Money has more power in district elections, and money would only have to purchase five Seattle City Council Members. So, it is no "stone cold fact" that district elections would ever have anything to do with "grassroots". "Astroturf" maybe, with a dressing of insincere district pandering by bought SCC candidates.

The district proposal reduces a citizens voting power, and increases the power of crony money.

Were you here for the last two district campaign efforts? Guess which side the downtown cabal money was on (hint - it wasn't the pro-district campaign).

Districts aren't perfect, but they'd be a massive improvement - which is why the Seattle political establishment has fought them tooth and nail every time they've been attempted.

Crossrip,

If it's so glaringly obvious and such a slam dunk that ST is illegal, go and sue already - i.e. - put up or shut up.

Seriously - when one considers all of the time Crossrip spends here posting the same stuff OVER AND OVER (and watching to see who comments so he can have the same last repetitive word) it's glaringly obvious that he has enough time on his hands to file a case, do the legal research (such as that is) and argue it.

Put up or shut up.

It may be useful to consider the experience in other cities.

San Francisco is an interesting case of a city that went back-and-forth between at-large and district representation. (Harvey Milk was elected when the city had districts.)

I believe Houston, Texas, has had a hybrid system with some council members at-large and some by districts. (Note: I am not defending Houston's land use policies, just noting that it has a hybrid council election system.)

Should be pretty easy to delete the 2 at-large city councilmembers in a few years after the 7+2 system is in place.