MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF KING COUNTY

Supports Initiative 26

Asking Voters if They Wish to Amend the King County Charter
to Make County Government Nonpartisan

August 19, 2008 Primary Election Ballot

Summary and Background

Initiative 26 to the County Council proposes a King County Charter amendment to make the offices of County Executive, Assessor and Council nonpartisan. The elective County Sheriff is already nonpartisan. If I-26 is adopted, candidates would compete in nonpartisan elections beginning in 2009. The initiative also establishes a nonpartisan Council districting process.

The Council could have adopted the measure outright or it could have placed only the citizen’s Charter amendment on the ballot. Instead, the Council opposed the Initiative and adopted a Council Alternative measure which would allow candidates for nonpartisan County offices to express preference for a political party or express no party preference. The Council’s action initiates a two-step process. In the first step, on the August 19, 2008 primary ballot, voters will be asked two questions: (1) if they wish to vote on the amendment to the Charter, and (2) whether they prefer to vote on I-26 or on the Council’s Alternative. If a majority of voters say they wish to vote on the amendment, they will be asked in November 2008 if they wish to adopt the measure that received the largest number of votes.

I-26 addresses an important governance issue that the Municipal League has commented on numerous times, most recently in a letter to the County Council dated June 22, 2004. “We urge you to place on the November 2004 ballot the question of whether elected officials in King County government should be partisan or nonpartisan. The partisanship issue is closely and logically linked to the size-of-council issue already destined for the voters this fall. We strongly believe that it is past time for the public to have a voice on this matter. We are not taking a position on the advisability of either outcome at this time. We will do so when the specific ballot language is available.”

The history of this issue in King County is long. In 1967-68, voters elected Freeholders who drafted and presented the first Home Rule County Charter in Washington. The Municipal League was a major sponsor and supporter of the process. During the drafting process, the citizen Freeholders were given legal advice that state law required county elected officials to be partisan. And because the State Constitution did not allow citizen initiatives to amend the State Constitution, no Charter provision for citizen-sponsored Charter amendments was included in the new Charter. Since then, however, a State Supreme Court decision allowed Charter amendment by citizen initiative.

Since 1968, every ten years, appointed citizen Charter Review Commissions have recommended to the Council that the nonpartisan question be placed before county voters. But under the Charter as written, the Council is the “gatekeeper” over all Charter amendments to be placed on the ballot, including recommendations from the Charter Review Commissions.

In the early 1990s, participants in the regional summit process negotiating the merger of METRO and King County agreed that the newly-merged government should be nonpartisan, the Council, however, failed to adopt the provision. The current I-26 is supported by a great number of current and former elected officials of Seattle and many other cities in King County. Despite the many calls over decades for citizens to have a voice on the question of partisan or nonpartisan County government, the Council has declined to hold hearings on the matter or, until now, to place a Charter amendment on the ballot.

Arguments for I-26:

• Initiative proponents make the following arguments for I-26:
• Voter choice would be improved because voters could select from all candidates rather than being limited to those nominated by the parties.
• There would be more competition, as candidates in the current system generally have little chance if challenging incumbents of their own party. County Council members often run unopposed, especially in districts that lean toward one party or the other.
• A partisan lens on issues often puts pressure on elected officials to move to extremes on issues to respond to the most active voices in their party base rather than work toward the middle in seeking solutions to problems.
• County government deals with many of the same local services that municipal government does: public safety, roads, parks and utilities. These issues are not partisan.
• A nonpartisan County government would be able to build stronger partnerships with city councils, water, sewer, fire, hospital and other districts, all of which are nonpartisan.
• Council caucuses and voting blocs sometimes lead to inappropriately partisan positions on issues rather than ensuring representation of true district and constituent interests.
• The “Top Two” primary system is not yet settled law in Washington. If it should be overturned, the nonpartisan election method would ensure voters continue to have more choices.
• The initiative has the overwhelming support of local officials who feel shut out from the County Council’s partisan style of policy making.
• If opponents state that party designations simply give voters information, what kind of information are they getting? Parties do not take positions on delivery of local services.
• I-26 does not prohibit candidates from discussing their party affiliation if they wish to.
• The Council’s Alternative is a “bait and switch” measure—it appears to make partisan labels optional but would actually preserve the power of the parties to identify their preferred candidates.
• Of the dozen largest counties nationwide, half have partisan, half non-partisan governments. In Washington, most counties have the traditional form of government which requires three partisan Commissioners and many independently elected officials. Among the six Charter counties, two (San Juan and Whatcom) have recently switched to nonpartisan governments.
  

Arguments against I-26:

Opponents make these arguments:

• Parties serve a useful function in identifying, screening and training candidates which would be more difficult to achieve if their influence on the nominations process is reduced as I-26 proposes.
• Partisan designations help voters identify a candidate’s political philosophy, an important function especially when voters are less informed or have limited time to learn about a candidate prior to voting.
• Unlike cities, County government deals with regional issues like courts, jails, transit and countywide land use policy, which affect citizens throughout the county. Much like in state or national government, party identification helps citizens understand candidates’ priorities.
• Since 1990 the Council has voted on a straight party line only seven times. Partisanship is just not an issue in the functioning of County government.
• The Council has addressed the perception of unfairness that arises when the majority party controls all of the committees by rewriting the policy and allowing minority party members to have committee chair roles.
• King County government is not broken. The initiative is a solution in search of a problem.
• Candidates who are reluctant to affiliate with a party are free under the current Charter to run as independents.
• The Council’s Alternative preserves the intent of I-26 and is a good option because it allows candidates to state a party preference if they choose to, but does not require it.
  

Recommendation and Rationale

Municipal League of King County supports a “Yes” vote to place the question of partisan elections before the voters and further support a “Yes” vote for Initiative 26 as the text of the measure to be considered.

Consistent with the Municipal League position on record that King County voters should have the opportunity to vote on the issue of nonpartisan County government, we recommend that voters take the steps to put Initiative 26 on the November ballot. However, we have concerns about amending the County Charter by the current initiative process. We would have preferred it if the County Council had shown earlier willingness to consider this issue and placed it before voters, as many, including the Municipal League, have urged over the years. By failing to give voters the choice in the past despite many opportunities, the Council has compelled citizens to take this matter into their own hands.'

Voters should not support the Council’s Alternative because it does not provide a true choice. Only a vote in the fall on I-26 will put the choice to select a partisan or nonpartisan government squarely before County voters. With this recommendation we are not supporting nonpartisan government. Rather, we are saying, let the voters choose. If voters agree in the August primary to place a Charter amendment on the ballot, the Municipal League may consider a position for or against nonpartisan government in the November election.