Reform of King County county government is popular but is almost always painted as a Republican plot. Nevertheless, the generally liberal electorate has embraced change. Last night, they gave the nod to I-26, which would allow a vote in November on whether or not to make county elected positions non-partisan. It will join another measure passed last year as
Partisan Democrats tend to see this tinkering as part of a GOP strategy to find stealth avenues to power in a county increasingly dominated by Blue.
In the current instances, some liberals have objected to making offices non-partisan because it would allow county Republicans to hide their affiliations. Dems are peeved that Dino Rossi appeared on the new "top two" ballot (which both parties hate) as preferring "the GOP party," an attempt to duck the Republican label. Polls show a pretty large number of people — including Democrats — don't know what "GOP" stands for. Voters appear to have rejected a Democratic county council-approved version of the I-25 proposal that would have allowed county candidates to indicate a party preference when running for non-partisan offices.
In the case of the elections office, that comes out of the contentious 2004 gubernatorial debacle where a tiny number of King County votes decided the election — some Republicans say stole it. King is the only county whose election supervisor is not accountable to the voters. Nevertheless, Democrats see it as a way for Republicans to get their hands on the electoral process — to steal it back, perhaps. Plus, the elections issue tends to fire up Republican voters.
Previous reforms have also run into Democratic objection. The reduction in the size of the county council and the making of the sheriff's office into an elected position were also seen as GOP plots to reduce Democratic power and provide a platform for Republican law-and-order candidates who might use the sheriff's position as a springboard to higher office (true enough in the case of Congressman Dave Reichert).
But despite Democratic squirming, the people seem very comfortable with considering and implementing reform. And the fact is, these proposals fall right into mainstream opinion: more accountability, more efficiency, less partisanship. It's part of a desire Northwest voters have long had, and that is to take at least some of the politics out of politics. That, in itself, is a highly political proposition.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 8:23 a.m. Inappropriate
Need a few more facts here: In your haste to mock King County Democrats, you neglect to mention that both the initiatives they consider to be Republican plots actually are Republican plots. Both the non-partisan Council/Executive and elections director charter change initiatives were funded by a small group of major Republican donors. The King County Council reduction initiative was run by Republican icon Tim Eyman and funded by the County jail guards as acknowledged payback for budget cuts. And you never explain why anyone should consider these politically-motivated measures to be "reforms." Pretty lazy stuff.
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate
There's a good reason why I-26 passed. People are frustrated. Perhaps that should be addressed, rather than decrying it as a Republican "plot."
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 1:37 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Need a few more facts here: It doesn't matter whether they are plots or not. My point is that voters, many of them Democrats, simply don't care. Voters are generally supportive of (and less suspicious of) county reforms which offer they think will offer "more accountability, more efficiency, less partisanship." Charges of GOP scheming haven't worked. The fact is, voters look at these and they seem to make common sense. I'll wager no one outside government misses those extra county council members.
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 2:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Still need more facts: Benjamin: Medic One was founded as a city of Seattle program in 1970 and was so successful it was expanded countywide within a decade. It has always been funded as an excess levy and has never received city or county general fund money. It now costs about $103 million per year to maintain; the county's general fund budget is about $662 million. Assuming your plan is to tap the county budget, an initiative to "fully fund" Medic One would require cutting almost one-sixth of current county spending, 71 percent of which now goes to public safety functions, such as police, courts, and jails. Why would it be a good idea to cut police, courts and jails to get the Medic One service we already have? I guess your definition of "sensible" is different than most people's.
Skip: How do non-partisan elections "offer more accountability, more efficiency, less partisanship?" I get the partisanship part, but nothing you wrote addresses the other two claims. So, your argument is that I-26 is a "reform" because a lot of people support it?
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Perhaps that was a bad example, but please go back and read my comment with anything you find sensible in place of Medic One, and then let me know what you think?
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 3:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Facts are still good: Oh, all right. When the concept of Seattle District Elections comes back, I'm sure some dumbhead will claim it's a Republican plot (although where in Seattle you could draw a Republican-majority district is anyone's guess). I just hate the Medic One canard (a fave of Dori Monson, no less) and I still think it's significant that both the non-partisan initiative and the Elections Director initiative were filed and fully funded by a few rich Republicans.
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 4:44 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Still need more facts: Not every proposal does all those things. I-26 by definition takes the parties off the table, as you note. An elected elections supervisor is an example of more accountability--the voters, as they can in all other 38 counties, can vote-in or vote-out whoever is in charge of running elections--or screwing them up. Same with the sheriff's office. And I would describe reducing the county council as an efficiency measure--certainly a streamlining one.
Posted Wed, Aug 20, 6:01 p.m. Inappropriate
AND THE ONLY THING WORSE: than a republican is a rich republican.