King County Charter Amendments

These are all on the King County Charter Amendments:

Amendment No. 1 - Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would create a non-partisan elective position to oversee elections.

Vote No if you think the director of elections is a technical job and should be appointed. Vote Yes if you feel that an elected person should be in charge of elections.

From the PI Editorials:

…Supervising elections primarily requires management skills and professional knowledge. Like the League of Women Voters, we believe elective office should generally be reserved for policy-making positions, not this type of administrative job. Under the current system, the County Council confirms the executive's appointment of an elections director. The executive should be held responsible if voters are unhappy. The director of elections is a technical job and should be appointed.

Amendment No. 2 – Vote YES

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would add disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression to the prohibited grounds for discrimination in county employment and county contracting.

Vote Yes if you’re against discrimination. Vote No if you’re a bigot.

From the Times Editorials:

This is a housekeeping measure that follows what was done in state law two years ago.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 3 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: Yes

From the Times Editorials:

Amendment 3 concerns membership on the regional transit, regional water-quality and regional policy committees. These now have six council members and six from city governments. The amendment would cut it to three council members but give each member two votes. The council would therefore have the same power with half the work.

Vote No if you think the Council needs all the help it can get. Vote Yes if you think the committees would be more efficient with less people.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.” I still voted No.


Amendment No. 4 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would allow the council to establish additional qualifications for separately elected officials, such as the assessor, sheriff, and the elections director, if Amendment No. 1 is approved.

Vote No if you feel the qualifications of these officials should be left to you. Vote Yes if you feel the County should narrow the list of potential candidates for you.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Currently, the requirements are: age 18, citizen, county voter. That's all. While we agree that anyone elected should have more qualifications than that, it should be the people's business — not the council's — to say what those qualifications are.

Note that the Voter’s Pamphlet indicates the qualifications require you to be 21. Not sure which is correct, and I don’t have the time to figure out who is, since it’s really not that much different.


Amendment No. 5 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would require the establishment of a forecast council and an office of economic and financial analysis.

Vote Yes if you want to make sure the budget is done right. Vote No if you could care less.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

This is what the state has been doing for 24 years, and it has made the state's budgets more honest.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 6 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

From the Seattle Times:

Amendment 6 would move up certain budget deadlines by 20 days. Budgets are more and more complicated, and the fine-print folks need more time. Give 'em a break.

Vote Yes if you want the Council to have more time to review the budget. Vote No if you think the county budget is easy to understand.

Note that the Voters Pamphlet had no “Statement Against.”


Amendment No. 7 – Vote No

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This would increase the number of signatures needed for citizens to directly propose amendments to the King County Charter.

Vote No if you want power to remain with the people. Vote Yes if you feel that the King County Charter is our county’s constitution and should not be amended easily.

The increase in the number of signatures would make it essentially impossible to get a citizen based change to the Charter. Although the Voter’s Pamphlet “Statement Against” is written in part by Tim Eyman, I still feel as if more power should remain with the people.


Amendment No. 8 – Vote Yes

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Yes

This would make the offices of King county executive, assessor and council nonpartisan, and establish the nonpartisan selection of districting committee members.

Vote Yes if you think this will make the county offices operate better since county issues are not as relevant to Democratic or Republican views. Vote No if you enjoy partisanship or feel that this simply puts less information at the hands of voters.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Voters in August had a first crack at this proposal but it is a two-step process. The favorable vote in the primary must be followed by another yes on the official charter change on the November ballot.

County government can operate more smoothly, in a less rancorous manner, if partisanship is removed. Issues of transportation, land use, density and criminal justice do not really lend themselves to the traditional divisiveness of Republican and Democratic ideology.

Getting rid of the partisanship could open the offices to more challengers. Too frequently, County Council and executive campaigns lack vigorous opponents. It's the land of incumbency. Making the offices nonpartisan ought to attract more new participants.