The price of politics: Former council candidate’s signature shortfall may lead to change in the law

One of the many twists and turns of the first-ever Seattle City Council District 1 race was the case of the signature-gathering candidate who fell just short of making it onto the ballot. Instead of paying the $1,200 fee to get onto the ballot, Amanda Kay Helmick, you’ll recall, decided to circulate petitions to get 1,200 signatures. We accompanied her to King County Elections HQ the day she turned them in (photo at right). When all were counted – and recounted – she was nine names short. It was an all-or-nothing situation – $1,200 or 1,200 names – period. So her seven-month campaign ended. But she vowed to fight for a better process. And now a bill has been introduced in the State Legislature … House Bill 2477, with sponsors including our area’s state Reps. Joe Fitzgibbon and Eileen Cody. If a candidate gathered at least 95 percent of the required number of valid signatures, s/he would have two weeks to cover the shortfall either with signatures or a dollar in lieu of each missing name. After a hearing Tuesday in the House Committee on State Government, that same committee is scheduled to consider the bill in executive session tomorrow.

clark5080 January 20, 2016 (1:38 pm)

Guess I don’t understand her beef with the process There was a deadline and she was aware of it maybe she should have worked harder to get the proper number? Why do we need to change the law?

WSB January 20, 2016 (1:44 pm)

Guess I should have mentioned that she did collect more than the required number – 10 percent over, about 1,320. The ways in which signatures can be challenged or discounted, she said in one of our earlier stories, was eye-opening. (And some people experience that with the voting process too – I signed my ballot too hastily one election and it was ultimately discarded as a result.) – TR
Joe Szilagyi January 20, 2016 (1:59 pm)

This is an interesting and reasonable change in elections law. If you want to buy your way into ballot access, you pay. If you want to collect signatures, you can get in for free. Or, you can split the difference. It doesn’t really make sense for it to be all or nothing. Elections shouldn’t be just for candidates with wealth or those that can drum massive bands of supporters early on.

AmandaKH January 20, 2016 (2:04 pm)

This story is missing mention of the efforts of Marty Westerman. He is actually the person who pursued this, did the research and ultimately testified yesterday in Committee. Thank you Marty, from the bottom of my heart.

LarryB January 20, 2016 (2:05 pm)

$1,200 doesn’t seem like an unreasonable hurdle for a serious candidate, and 1,200 signatures seems achievable too. Only collecting an additional 10% buffer of signatures indicates that she probably didn’t do enough research into the process.I don’t think we need a new law, and I think the $1 = one signature is silly. Either a candidate is serious enough to meet one of the (low) requirements, or they aren’t.

Mickymse January 21, 2016 (10:17 am)

$1 = one signature isn’t “silly.” It is actually how the law currently functions. Because this particular position has a $1200 filing fee, it requires 1200 signatures to bypass the fee — all money or all signatures. What the new law is proposing is simply to allow a middle way that could be partially signatures and partially money. It even goes further, because it doesn’t allow one to just split the difference. It is intended to focus on people who put in the effort but unfortunately fall just the tiniest bit short — by getting at least 95% of their signatures certified. What is wrong with that?

Joe Szilagyi January 20, 2016 (2:07 pm)

What we should do is change the law even further, so that you can only get ballot access with signatures. No cash option allowed.

mcbride January 20, 2016 (2:22 pm)

Hey, Amanda, thanks for running on principle. I thought your approach to representative government was awesome. A legacy that breaks down barriers for folks willing to roll up their sleeves and have a first-hand go at democracy is something to be proud of.

Lina January 21, 2016 (1:02 pm)

I am with McBride on this one!

Ivan January 20, 2016 (2:50 pm)

Either we want our electoral system to be more open and more accessible, or we don’t. This bill doesn’t give any free ride to prospective candidates who come up a few signatures short. It makes them go out and work harder if they want to be on the ballot. It’s a reasonable tweak to the existing law, and I support it.

Astrogirl January 20, 2016 (4:57 pm)

I agree with Ivan. I don’t know why 7 months of work and a 10% buffer is not considered “serious” versus someone who can pay $1200.

Peter January 20, 2016 (5:33 pm)

I say get rid of the filing fee entirely. Make all candidates get the signatures to prove they at least have some degree of support in the community. Not enough signatures? Too bad so sad.

redblack January 20, 2016 (5:51 pm)

i’m with joe: change the law further.no one should be able to buy her/his way onto a ballot.i thought we were trying to get money out of politics here.

public administrator January 21, 2016 (10:45 am)

Is this new law really necessary to provide a second chance for a candidate who was 95% close to the signature goal but not quite there ? What about the candidate paying the filing fee by raising $10 from 120 supporters, do they get extra time if they’re $50 short?

Amanda Kay Helmick waited until the last day to file for the election, with a scant 10% buffer and declined on the option to put down a deposit. A prudent person would have submitted her signatures two weeks ahead of time to allow the elections department to review the signatures and collect additional names if necessary.

I want my legislators to be competent in spending public funds and mindful of complying with existing laws and procedures. As an elected official sometimes you only get one chance to get it right. Some candidates thought their efforts were best spent standing at farmer’s markets with a clipboard, while others raised money or spent their own and focused on other tasks of campaigning.

Incidentally I wanted to see Helmick in the primary and signed her petition.For those advocating that collecting signatures is somehow more politically virtuous, keep in mind the position of Seattle City councilmember pays well over $100K and manages a staff of three. There a few positions that well compensated that don’t involve a professional dues, licenses or fees just to be eligible to be hired. In scheme of things a $1,200 election filing fee for what is essentially a four year contract position is miniscule.

Sorry, comment time is over.