I-1029 – Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This measure would require long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides based on an examination, with exceptions; increase training and criminal background check requirements; and establish disciplinary standards and procedures.

Vote No if you want the Legislature to take care of this in a more cost-effective manner, vote Yes if you want to improve the finances of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

This initiative sounds good, but similar to Tim Eyman’s proposal, you need to know all the facts before voting. It does sound funny to think government could do a more cost effective job, but I am real suspicious of the sponsors of this initiative. From the PI Editorials:

I-1029 would load up the expenses and worsen Washington's serious budget problems…The better alternative is to let the Legislature pass a smarter bill, which already is in waiting. I-1029 is, in fact, a my-way-or-the-highway substitute for good legislation that was sailing into law before the powerful Service Employees International Union intervened to strike fear of lost campaign support in cowardly lawmakers.

After leading a state task force on the issue, Democratic Rep. Dawn Morrell -- a registered nurse who knows the issues well -- wrote a bill that passed the House of Representatives 95-0. It would have provided new training in a smarter, targeted, cheaper way, which was designed to help workers advance into nursing assistant and even nursing training. A similar version went through the Senate 47-2, but the SEIU had the clout to keep lawmakers from finishing work so the union could run its initiative.

I-1029 sounds good, and the idea behind it is absolutely necessary. But manipulating the process to thwart good lawmaking is completely wrong. Reject I-1029 and let Morrell and the Legislature finish their good work on the cause.

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.

President and Vice President of the United States – Vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Democrats)

Seattle Times: Obama
Post Intelligencer: Obama

Obviously, I’m going to vote for Obama because my views align closely with the Democratic Party. But regardless of his policies, what I really like about him is his ability to inspire others. Did you see that picture in St. Louis where over 100,000+ came to see him speak? Of course there is the historic speech in 2004, but even his speech this year at the convention moved me. When was the last time this many people were energized over the President? I know this sounds cheesy, but hearing him speak, it inspires me to be a better citizen.

The other thing about Obama is his intelligence. I don’t get the people who think sounding professorial or graduating from Columbia and Harvard is a bad thing. This is actually a good thing. Like many people I talk to, I want someone smarter than me running our country, the more elite, the better. From the Seattle Times Editorials:

Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

From the PI Editorials:

If the country ever needed new direction under a fresh, steady, calm president, this is the time. Sen. Barack Obama is the country's hope, the kind of promising, intelligent leader who comes along perhaps once in a generation.

Vote for Obama if you want a “once in a generation” leader.

Vote for McCain if:
· your household income is over $250,000.
· you think Obama is a terrorist (he’s not).
· you think Palin is qualified to take over as President

I’m not going to spend time going through all the issues. You can read a quick Seattle Times Summary.

United States Representative Congressional District No. 8 – Vote for Darcy Burner (Democrat)

Seattle Times: Reichert
Post Intelligencer: Reichert

I like Dave Reichert. I heard him give a speech when the Nisei Veterans Hall re-opened, and his sincerity when he spoke moved me. There were plenty of other Democrats who spoke and I don’t remember their speeches, but I remembered Reichert’s sincerity. With his background as the King County Sheriff, I also feel safe around him. Based on their endorsements, both the Times and the PI believe he’s done a good job as a moderate Republican.

On the other hand, I don’t like Darcy Burner. There is something weird about her voice that I just can’t peg, and frankly, she sounds unintelligent (I’m sure she’s not, seeing as how she has a computer science degree from Harvard). Maybe it’s her smile, or her glasses, I don’t know, but she just downright annoys me.

But I’m not voting for Miss Congeniality. I’m not going to be working with these individuals and I won’t be interacting with them. For local races, I have no problem voting for Republicans (except for the Governor’s position, see below) as the social conservative agenda doesn’t come into play. However, for a federal election, as a Democrat, I vote to support the issues, and Burner more closely mirrors my beliefs.

Some may say to vote Republican in this race, since there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will control both Congress and the Presidency, creating unchecked Democratic control. Maybe with another President there would be something to fear. However, as an Obama believer, I believe in him to do the right thing. I want to give him all the help he can get to enact his policies if he wins. And we still don’t know who will win, the polls could be way off. Some polls have Obama leading in double digits, and others have it as a virtual tie. If you believe in Obama’s policies, why wouldn’t you also vote for Burner whose policies would closely mirror his?

Vote Yes for Burner if you believe in Obama. Vote No if you fear the possibility of both Congress and the Presidency controlled by the Democrats.

If you still can’t decide, look at the Seattle Times Q&A, and see the Seattle Times Voters Guide for a side-by-side comparison of their stances.