West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

1. c@lbob
   Member Profile

   

   Mail ballots for the February 3 elections were mailed yesterday, look for yours starting today. If you don't get it by the 20th, call 296-VOTE and get a replacement.

   Vote Sherril Huff!

   Posted 3 years ago #         

2. Trisket
   Member Profile

   Vote Pam Roach!

   Posted 3 years ago #         

3. clark5080
   Member Profile

   

   Looks more and more like Sherril Huff is not eligable as she didn't move fast enough.

   Posted 3 years ago #         

4. JoB
   Member Profile

   clark5080...

   move fast enough for what?

   the ballots were mailed two days ahead of the state deadline... according to someone who actually knows.

   should she have personally delivered them so they didn't have to go through the process at the post office?

   one of those in west seattle is more efficient than the others you know....

   well, you would know if you live in the area served by the slower post office... if not.. you probably already have your ballot...

   Posted 3 years ago #         

5. Zenguy
   Member Profile

   

   Got mine last night, off in the mail this morning.

   Posted 3 years ago #         

6. c@lbob
   Member Profile

   

   No such luck Sound Politics guy

   http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008634651_huff16m.html

   Posted 3 years ago #         

7. JoB
   Member Profile

   what a lot of fuss about nothing...

   she didn't rent month to month.. she signed a lease...

   She changed her voter registration signaling she intended to live in King county.

   she moved to king county the following weekend...

   It's no surprise that the board decided she met her residency requirements....

   Posted 3 years ago #         

8. c@lbob
   Member Profile

   

   Yes, JoB, it was/is a tempest in a teapot, like so much of the hew and cry over KC Elections and their imagined shortcomings.

   The way folks talk about residency is a hoot, as if a residence has to be some holy temple that hovers a bit above the surrounding landscape.

   Fact is, you can claim 1st and Yesler as your residence with a mailing address at any nearby (or distant) MailBoxes'R'Us. Washington law allows US citizens to claim their parents' last Washington address as their residence, even if they were born in NY prior to the family sailing away, never to return. There are members of the military specifying addresses in KC that they haven't lived at in a decade.

   In reality, Huff met the residency requirement once she proclaimed it, even if she never slept a night in her Rainier Beach rental. Even if she never rented it.

   She could just as well have claimed Seward Park as her residence and had her mail delivered in Bremerton. It wouldn't be be politically correct, but I don't think her candidacy could be successfully challenged.

   Posted 3 years ago #         

9. c@lbob
   Member Profile

   

   I have it on good authority that the reason Sherril Huff took so long to decide to run for Elections Director was that she really had no intention of running.

   Then the potential candidates came calling, and one of them (I can only guess who) told her she could stay on and keep running things for him once he got elected. Not, she could stay and show him the ropes, but she could do the job.

   She decided she'd rather not cede the power that goes along with the hard work.

   Posted 3 years ago #         

10. JoB
    Member Profile

    well that's in character.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

11. Jeannie
    Member Profile

    Pam "appropriately named" Roach is not one of the cool Republicans. You can read about her policies elsewhere. But here are some gems about her work style and other unpleasant matters:

    "1. Sen. Pam Roach has been forbidden from dealing directly with Republican caucus staff members because GOP leaders say she has created a hostile work environment.

    In a letter sent to the Auburn Republican last week, Senate Republican leaders say Roach has shown a lack of boundaries with caucus-staff members, including making them listen to her recount "past perceived slights" by lawmakers, lobbyists and party leaders.

    The letter says Roach asks staff members to state that their loyalties lie with her and are subject to treatment that violates the Senate's prohibition on creating an "intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

    2. In March 1998, Roach threw a televised tantrum on the floor of the Senate because someone had moved a bouquet of roses from her desk.
    In 1999, another Roach aide abruptly quit, saying she was tired of what she called the senator's verbal abuse.
    Later in 1999, a committee of the top seven Democrat and Republican leaders in the Senate sent Roach a formal letter suggesting she seek professional counseling.

    3. Washington Department of Corrections administrators ordered the release of state Sen. Pam Roach's son, who was in prison on drug-trafficking charges, more than 100 days early -- despite warnings from community corrections officers that such a move would violate agency policy."

    Posted 3 years ago #         

12. JoB
    Member Profile

    jeannie...

    it doesn't sound like she plays well with others...

    that doesn't bode well for someone who would learn from her staff...

    thanks for the post...

    Posted 3 years ago #         

13. Jeannie
    Member Profile

    You're very welcome, JoB. For a little weekend entertainment, here's a short audio clip from Roach's tirade about the roses. Warning, folks - keep the kids away. She sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West. Nasty business, this War of the Roses. (P.S. The flowers had been moved because of the colleague sitting by her had allergies.)

    http://homepage.mac.com/gregdewar/dewar/pr.wav

    Posted 3 years ago #         

14. charlabob
    Member Profile

    

    And she's licensed to carry a concealed weapon (in addition to her tongue.) And no, before the snark begins, I do NOT favor gun confiscation -- perhaps slightly higher standards for gun licensing????

    Posted 3 years ago #         

15. Jeannie
    Member Profile

    Just DON'T touch Roach's flowers...or her pencils...or her ANYTHING...and she won't shoot you.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

16. miws
    Member Profile

    

    Thanks for the Roach clip, Jeannie! ;-)

    Mike

    Posted 3 years ago #         

17. Jeannie
    Member Profile

    Good one, Mike!

    Posted 3 years ago #         

18. celeste17
    Member Profile

    

    So how much is the election going to cost to elect a new election director? Why does this have to be a special election? I realise that there has been problems with the election department in recent elections but I still don't understand an election for one person.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

19. HMC Rich
    Member Profile

    

    Let's see. Roach, Republican, EVIL - Huff, Democrat, GOOD. Nice to know nothing around here has changed. And I thought it was non-partisan. This election has been quite entertaining. Vote early ...(and often?) OK, bad humor but I couldn't help it. Mike did make me laugh.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

20. JoB
    Member Profile

    HMCRich...

    if i thought Roach"s behavior had anything to do with her being a republican... i would have to stop talking with you.

    Please feel free to start taking potshots at democrats who display similar behavior..

    we can start with the governor of Illinois who makes such an impression on me that i don't care to remember his name... and the senator he appointed who appears to be a case of affirmative action gone bad.. but we will see.

    This democrat doesn't take herself or her party so seriously as to support a bad candidate just because he/she's one of us...

    A bad candidate is just that.. a bad candidate.. even when you dress them up in designer suits ;~>

    Posted 3 years ago #         

21. charlabob
    Member Profile

    

    Celeste,

    It all started with a petition that got enough signatures to get put on the ballot. In August, the voters were asked if they wanted to consider electing an elections director, and 63.96% said yes. Then, in November 2008, the following measure was on the ballot:

    King County Charter Amendment No. 1
    Elected Elections Director

    "Shall the King County Charter be amended to provide that the position of county director of elections be created as a nonpartisan elected office?"

    If you look at the full description of that ballot question, it states: "The initial election for the county director of elections would occur at a special election on February 3, 2009. . ."

    http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31868&eid=1226

    56.32% of voters in that large turnout election said yes, so we have a special election with a single issue (for 90%+ of the county) on it.

    Because democracy demands it.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

22. Julie
    Member Profile

    

    For those of you who would like to see King County adopt Instant Runoff (Ranked Choice) voting, here's what I have so far on the candidate's positions on IRV (via Jim Burrows on the InstantRunoffWA Yahoo group:

    Sherril Huff: no reply, but she's endorsed by Dwight Pelz, Washington state Democratic chair, who is rabidly anti-IRV (he's afraid it weakens the power of the political parties.) She may, of course, disagree with him.

    Bill Anderson: IRV maybe, look at Pierce Co's experience.

    Christopher Clifford: NO! IRV is contrary to "one person, one vote" (this misconception shows a lack of deep understanding on Clifford's part)

    No information yet about:
    David Irons: no reply.
    Pam Roach: no reply.
    Julie Kempf: no reply.

    This is, of course, only one point to take into consideration--but for those to whom it's a point that matters to any extent, I will continue to post information about the candidates' position as I learn more.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

23. JoB
    Member Profile

    if politicizing the office of Director of Elections is part of what we inherit from the collective decision to make this an elected position... then knowing what the candidates positions are on issues may well become more important than we think.

    what i would want to know is what the candidate's position is on how you purge voter rolls of unqualified candidates.. since that is one area where a candidate can have a direct immediate impact.

    Most of what is done currently regarding policy by someone in that position is advisory at best... they implement policy instead of making policy.

    but that could change since this has become an elected position and therefore political.

    opening pandora's box has always created more than you expect... and that is never more true than when it comes to politics.

    if we are going to look at a candidate's stand on issues though, i would caution against making the assumption that any candidate agrees with the positions of those who endorse them ...

    Posted 3 years ago #         

24. charlabob
    Member Profile

    

    Actually, the position of KC Elections Director is tactical, rather than strategic. Both party chairs have expressed opposition to anything that dilutes the strength of the party (including the "top two" primary winners on the final ballot, regardless of party, which was implemented for this last election.)

    The job of the elections director (and hir department) is to implement whatever the people, through their elected representatives, dictate --hir personal opinion of the law shouldn't and doesn't impact the running of the department. You don't want it to.

    It occurred to me as I was writing this that it's one of the oddities of electing the elections director. It's not an issue-driven position at all, because the person elected doesn't make policy -- (s)he simply implements it.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

25. JoB
    Member Profile

    charlabob...

    i agree that's the position as it currently stands... and i nearly wrote exactly that in reply to Julie until i made myself stop and consider the possible implications of moving this task to an elected position...

    after all.. very few expect the electorate to review the actual qualifications of those campaigning for this job...

    the job itself is not political.. but the tactical advantage could be made very political.

    we have seen how the ramifications of the appointment of the head of FEMA ... based solely on political affiliation.. directly affected the service of the department.

    we don't want or need a katrina response here.. even if the Director of Elections is elected instead of appointed...

    that's why on reflection i consider the manipulation of this post to an elected official a pandora's box that we may wish we had never opened.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

26. charlabob
    Member Profile

    

    Believe me, the people who opened this box, by proposing the original election, knew exactly what they were doing. The words "red herring" leap to mind. :-)

    Whether elected or appointed, fools will always creep into the government. The political appointee of Bill Clinton to head FEMA, James Lee Witt, was supremely competent and the office thrived. In fact, in my fantasy world, Obama will bring him back.

    The electorate has already decided to elect the elections director. I'm just saying hir position on IRV (which I support on alternate Tuesdays) or abortion or global warming is irrelevant.

    JoB, as always, we're in violent agreement.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

27. Julie
    Member Profile

    

    I find the candidates' positions on IRV suggestive, though not definitive. My primary criteria for this job are a clear understanding of voting technology and its strengths and weaknesses, and a commitment and skills to implement a fair election. But I think a position on IRV is important to know for these reasons:

    1. A candidate who supports IRV shows some evidence of a more sophisticated understanding of voting and democracy than one who opposes it. A commitment to a more-democratic voting system is a plus for someone who's in charge of implementing an election.

    2. If two candidates were to show equal strength as managers of elections, one who supported IRV or RCV might be more likely to facilitate an IRV election well. Pierce County's auditor was charged with implementing an election with a system she opposed.

    And I did point out that Sherril Huff does not necessarily agree with Dwight Pelz just because he endorsed her. If I come to the conclusion that Sherril Huff is better than the other candidates, I'd probably vote for her even if she were to oppose IRV. Then I'd just work on educating her.

    We can add Pam Roach to the "opposes" column, btw.

    Posted 3 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.