34th District Democrats’ endorsements, the shorter version

| West Seattle news | West Seattle politics | West Seattle video

That’s one of the results getting all the citywide coverage in the wake of last night’s 5-hour 34th District Democrats endorsement meeting at The Hall at Fauntleroy: While West Seattle-residing Mayor Greg Nickels got the most votes, it wasn’t the two-thirds needed for an endorsement, not even on the 2nd ballot when it was Nickels vs. Michael McGinn, who was in second place after the first ballot. So the group then voted for a “dual endorsement” (other option on Ballot 3 would have been “no endorsement”). Anyway, if you want a taste of the moment-by-moment drama, see our as-it-happened account from last night. Right here, it’s our wrapup with just the basics, plus a few more photos and video clips interspersed:

SEATTLE MAYOR
Dual endorsement: Greg Nickels, Michael McGinn (mayor photographed early in the meeting, back of the room)

SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY
Sole endorsement: Tom Carr (shown in this next clip after fellow West Seattleite, Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, introduced him – our clips are lo-fi, shot on Flip)

SEATTLE REFERENDUM 1 (BAG FEE)
No position

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, POSITION 2
Dual endorsement: David Ginsberg, Richard Conlin – captured in the same frame during a lull in the action – after the photo, you’ll see how Ginsberg pitched for the vote:

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, POSITION 4
Dual endorsement: Dorsol Plants, Sally Bagshaw

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, POSITION 6
Dual endorsement: Nick Licata, Jessie Israel – got them both on video:

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, POSITION 8
Dual endorsement: David Miller, Robert Rosencrantz (here’s Miller pre-vote)

NORTH HIGHLINE SOUTH ANNEXATION (an area including part of White Center voting whether to be annexed by Burien)
Support

SEATTLE PORT COMMISSION POSITION 1
No endorsement

SEATTLE PORT COMMISSION POSITION 3
Rob Holland

SEATTLE PORT COMMISSION POSITION 4
Max Vekich

Official account online at 34dems.org. Wondering why so many “dual endorsements”? A two-thirds majority was required for a sole endorsement, so most key races went to three ballots – first with all the candidates, then the top two, then “dual endorsement or no endorsement.” Made vote-counting intense for the groups working on the elevated stage – at tables or even on the floor:

Meantime, remember that this group made an earlier endorsement of King County Council Chair Dow Constantine for King County Executive – he was at last night’s meeting too, introduced with cheers and whoops:

Added later Thursday morning: As noted in our running coverage from last night, some additional endorsement proposals were brought before the group at the end of the meeting, though they weren’t on the original agenda. Results of those proposals: The 34th DDs support the “Decline to Sign” campaign (asking people not to sign petitions being circulated that would set up a public vote on the domestic-partnership-rights measure passed by the Legislature), and also endorsed state Court of Appeal Judge Anne Ellington.

What happens next: The primary election is August 18. It’s all-mail, however, and your ballot could arrive before July is over, since the county plans to start sending them on July 29.

kstineback July 9, 2009 (10:00 am)

Was there any mention/endorsement of the Seattle Housing Levy that will be on the ballot this fall?

Mean Gene July 9, 2009 (10:50 am)

(I was a participant) There are so many good people running – and a new generation emerging. A lot of people voted to encourage the lesser candidates. People I spoke with people who said they wouldn’t necessarily vote the same way if it was the Primary.

A Triple Endorsement is a practical impossibility, given the process.

I was surprised that old soldiers Drago and Bloom didn’t have more traction. “Favorite sons”, including the Mayor, are very attractive to West Seattle.

Christy July 9, 2009 (10:56 am)

Wow. That seems super unhelpful for so much time spent. Thanks for covering it though. Also, I wonder about the plastic bag fee proposal. I think very few people know that will be on the ballot.

WSB July 9, 2009 (11:04 am)

Christy – One thing to keep in mind is that last night was also the culmination of a series of meetings – City Council and Port candidates spoke at last month’s meeting, officially a “candidate forum,” and County Executive candidates spoke at a Fauntleroy forum shortly before that. We covered both, and other politics-related events, as well as the bag fee battle earlier this year (you’re right, it’s time for more stories on that), all archived in our Politics category, newest to oldest:
https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?cat=19

Mean Gene July 9, 2009 (11:23 am)

No position was taken on Prop 1 (Bag Fee) due to political concerns – not the importance of the issue.

In my opinion, it appears heavy handed and arrogant in implementation. A more finessed approach – maybe a gradual approach and avoidance of the word “tax” would be less of a political liability. An annoyance factor will appear to the non-political voter on a daily basis. This will not be helpful and could backlash.

WSB July 9, 2009 (11:25 am)

As we noted in the as-it-happened version of the story, since neither position got two-thirds majority, they took no position – saying a “dual endorsement” wouldn’t have been feasible on a yes/no matter.

kstineback July 9, 2009 (7:08 pm)

So I assume nothing was said about the Housing Levy?

WSB July 9, 2009 (9:14 pm)

Sorry, I couldn’t remember but looked it up. EndorsEd at an earlier meeting.

Chris Porter July 11, 2009 (10:00 am)

The bag tax is just that-a tax. Some how we are okay with fuel tax, state tax, sales tax , tobacco tax ( a large tax) and property tax and levies, and yet a start to doing something about the environment, which will cost money, is considered unfair and thought to impact the poor the most. We have a sales tax that the poor and many others who don’t have the means to save because they are living paycheck to paycheck, will pay more of than others to keep living and eating in this state (10% and growing) Does anyone have an option that would help reduce the use of plastic bags? Banning plastic bags still means that there will be a cost to use something other than plastic bags – paper bags continue the environmental burden-though you can reuse them as well. So let us not call it what it is – a tax. Let us call it ( Transitional Access eXtraction) a tool used to move away from the use of plastic bags in some attempt to impact the environment in a meaningful way.

Chris Porter
Seattle, Wa

Sorry, comment time is over.