If the balloting at Tuesday night’s 43rd District Democrats primary endorsement meeting is any indication, Capitol HIll resident Maurice Classen has a legitimate shot at unseating incumbent Jean Godden in the race for City Council Position 1 — and the tunnel referendum has a legitimate shot at, well, confusing Seattle voters.
A reading of Referendum 1 to help clarify what a support or reject vote meant for the August primary ballot item drew a round of laughter from the crowd of political wonks, community activists and highly engaged citizens that form the main body of the 43rd Dems.
City of Seattle Referendum 1
The Seattle City Council passed Ordinance Number 123542 entering into agreements related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Section 6 of that ordinance has been referred to the voters for approval or rejection.
Section 6, if approved, would authorize the City Council to give notice to proceed, beyond preliminary design work, with three agreements concerning the State’s proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel. Section 6 states: “The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
Should this ordinance section be:
Approved?
Rejected?
The Seattle Times says the vote is not a “simple yes or no issue.” The Protect Seattle Now people say it is simple — reject the referendum. Tuesday night, the 43rd District Democrats said, we’ll pass, thanks, as “reject” failed to receive the necessary percentage for an endorsement. The 43rd’s official stance for August, then: No Position.
Things were more clear for a handful of School Board candidates, City Council incumbent candidates and one new comer to the City Council race. Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor — and resident of the 15th Ave E neighborhood — Maurice “Mo” Classen walked away with the only non-incumbent nod of the night. His competitor in the Position 1 race Bobby Forch also made a good showing. Position incumbent Jean Godden was a no show at the 43rd event.
Other City Council votes backed the incumbents with Tim Burgess, Sally Clark and Tom Rasmussen drawing enough votes to win official endorsements. Hugo House board member Brad Meacham was able to draw enough support to end Bruce Harrell’s chance for an endorsement in Position 3. The group took no position on the race.
Other candidates drawing the 43rd’s official support: Michelle Buetow for School Board, Gael Tarleton for Port of Seattle Commission, Larry Gossett, Larry Phillips and Joe McDermott for King County Council, Lloyd Hara for King County Assessor and Sherril Huff, King County Director of Elections.
The primary election is held August 16. Ballots will be mailed starting on July 29th.
We’ve updated our look at how the City Council candidates stack up — larger circles now indicated candidates who received 43rd District endorsements.
It’s hard to believe that Cioffi is very serious about winning this position, if she doesn’t even bother to showup at a gathering of very engaged and influential voters.
Maurice was very impressive. I’m glad that he got the endorsement! I particularly like his approach to domestic violence issues, as well human services in general. This guy is going to make a great councilmember!
It is rather unfortunate when an incumbent City Council member chooses to ignore a segment of voters.
I am glad that Classen got the endorsement! Representing the progressive values that the 43rd holds dear, and bringing representation for a part of Seattle that hasn’t had anyone on the Council in God knows how long is a step in the right direction!
I was that meeting last night and i was really impressed by Classen. He seems very passionate and genuine about wanting to make positive changes in Seattle.
Just to be clear, your framing of the Tunnel Referendum vote doesn’t share what actually happened last night.
The option to endorse a “No” vote on the Tunnel Referendum got a clear majority of votes, just not the 60% needed for an endorsement. The “Yes” position didn’t even get the 40% in the first round of voting required to be reconsidered. The final vote was 1 or 2 votes shy of getting the 60% necessary. There was clearly more support for a “No” vote than a “Yes.”
Just to be clear, your explanation wasn’t clear.
There were two rounds of voting on Ref. 1.
There were three options in Round 1:
1) Recommend a Yes vote,
2) Recommend a No vote, and
3) Make No Recommendation.
Recommending a Yes vote received around 30% of the vote.
Recommending a No vote received over 50% of the vote.
Making no recommendation received a percentage in the teens.
Because making a recommendation for a No vote received over 40% of the vote, there was a “Motion to Reconsider,” so we voted again. This time, the only two options were Recommending a No vote or not making a recommendation.
In the second round, Recommending a No vote received 58% of the vote. In order to get an endorsement in the 43rd, a person or issue has to receive 60% of votes cast.
Was that supposed to clear it up?