Sunday, December 02, 2007

Democracy, Whatcom Republicans Don't Like It!

On Tuesdays Whatcom County Council Agenda:



Ordinance forwarding Charter Amendment 1 to the County Auditor, for inclusion on the 2008 General Election Ballot, to provide that each member of the Whatcom County Council be elected by majority vote of the registered voters of Whatcom County. (AB2007-467)

Passage of this Ordinance won't change the Charter, it will send the question to the voters next November.

Here are a few facts that I find interesting:
1.) In the B'ham Herald;

Councilman Sam Crawford is the only one who has publicly stated that he is against the ballot measure. Crawford said previously he believes he benefited from district-only voting in the November election against challenger Ken Mann.

2.)Republican activist Charlie Crabtree wrote the "VOTE BY DISTRICT - PRO" position in 2005.

3.) There's an email circulating, from the Whatcom County GOP, that says;

... With strong support from the Whatcom County Republican Party, at heavy expense to our treasury, the voters approved passage of the Charter Amendment...

4.) Republican activist Charlie Crabtree co-authored the "VOTERS' PAMPHLET - CON" position in 2005.

In the proposed Ordinance Councilwoman Brenner spells out her reasons for wanting the issue to be revisited. (unfortunately the proposed Ordinance is online in a graphic pdf, so I've had to transcribe part of it... feel free to check my work (here ) )


...

WHEREAS, each Whatcom County district ensures candidates for county council in the general election have already met district standards by residing in the district and being forwarded from the district as the top two candidates after the primary election; and

WHEREAS, there was no comprehensive debate last year regarding general election district-only voting versus general election county-wide voting for county council members who have already been forwarded by their district; and

WHEREAS, last year's election changed the Whatcom County voting process without a comprehensive debate on its merits; and

WHEREAS, there was no local voters pamphlet which would explain both sides of the issue before the measure was voted on; and

WHEREAS, Whatcom County has now implemented a comprehensive local voters pamphlet to be able to give all voters both sides of the issue; and

...

WHEREAS, an election cycle has passed in which Whatcom County voters had the experience of district only voting in the general election for county council members; and

WHEREAS, many Whatcom County voters were upset by their inability to vote for all council members who directly affect their lives and were in the last general election; and

WHEREAS, district-only general election voting limits individual Whatcom County voters to only being able to elect a minority of council members who make decisions that may affect their lives; and

WHEREAS, the ballot title of the measure that changed Whatcom County's voting process last year may have been confusing to some voters; and
...

It sure sounds like Sam Crawford and the Whatcom Republicans pulled a fast-one in 2005, slipping through District-only voting under a vague ballot title.

With the local voters pamphlet having passed in spite of their opposition, it's no wonder they're trying to cut-off revisiting the issue of District-only vs. County-wide voting by trying to pressure Council members.

UPDATE:
Whatcom County Council member Sam Crawford posted a comment pointing out that I had incorrectly named him as the author of position statements on two of the 2005 charter amendments. I've edited this post to correct the error.

And... A day late but, Happy Birthday Sam.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for thinking of me on my birthday (December 2!) Someone directed me to your website, where I get mentioned FIVE times in your article. Cool!

I'd like to take credit for district-only voting, but I can't. And your links showing that I wrote things about it take you to sites that show others actually wrote those things, so I'm not sure I understand your "logic" here.

I did propose district-only voting after the 2003 elections. It did not make it to the ballot.

By 2005, my thinking on the subject had evolved considerably. I proposed a more elaborate plan, with 5 council districts rather than 3, which I believed would offer better representation than our current council set-up. And yes, it would have relied on district-only to work.

So when the day is over, I think district-only gets us closer to a local government reflecting the diversity and political makeup of the County, but I think improvements could still be made to really accomplish this.

Sam Crawford
671-7262

Mark said...

Kind of funny how majority (assuming) liberals would like, not to have a representation of their majority on the council, but rather a complete hold on the council. It sure hurts to have someone disagree with you on the council doesn't it!

Happy birthday Sam (sincerely)