I couldn’t help but be amused by the headline of this morning’s Seattle Times editorial: “Crushing the illusion of nonpartisan King County Council.”
IN an election overshadowed by gubernatorial and presidential contests, voters last year opted to change the Metropolitan King County Council from a partisan to a nonpartisan office. The vote was one thing, the reality quite another.
A perfect example includes the political high jinks associated with naming the council replacement for longtime Democrat Dow Constantine, the new county executive. His departure leaves eight members — four Democrats and four Republicans — or, four former Democrats and Republicans.
At risk of crushing the illusion, harsh partisanship reigns.
Well, duh-uh!
Just because a charter amendment officially declares an office nonpartisan doesn’t make it magically so. City councils throughout the county have long been putatively nonpartisan, yet even the most casual local political observers all know which council members hail from which party. Without the “R” or “D” next to their name on the ballot, the average voter might not always know who’s who, but as the Times points out, that sort of skin-deep nonpartisanship is merely an illusion.
Or in the Times’ case, perhaps it’s a delusion? I’ve long wondered if the Times’ ardent support for nonpartisan races was disingenuous or delusional, but now I’m guessing it’s a bit of both. The hope was, I suppose, that eliminating partisan labels might break the Democrat’s stranglehold on county government, but instead, it’s just ended up breaking county government itself. Without an officially partisan means of appointing an unofficially partisan official, and with no procedural method for breaking a tie, a fiasco like we’re seeing in the deadlock over Constantine’s replacement was both predictable and inevitable.
Now, thanks to the pleasant-sounding but boneheaded measure to make county offices nonpartisan, the council’s post-Dow row has sucked three legislative districts into political limbo with it. At least one, and perhaps two legislative seats will certainly change hands after the start of the 2010 session (Fred Jarrett’s replacement, and perhaps Joe McDermott’s or Zack Hudgins’), and that sort of disruption is simply inexcusable.
Or, of course, this all could have been avoided if, as the Times had previously advocated, the Democrats on the council had merely caved to the Republican block from the start. That’s likely the only way this dispute will be settled in the end, because Democrats do tend to care about governance, and are no match for Republicans when it comes to harsh partisan discipline. I suppose such a “compromise” could be spun as an act of nonpartisan collaboration… but more in the spirit of the way the Vichy French collaborated with the Germans, than the sort of high minded collaboration the supporters of the charter amendment fancifully imagined.
No doubt nonpartisanship is a noble ideal, and was roundly espoused as such by the founding fathers, but even they quickly fell into deeply partisan camps not long after the ink on the Constitution had dried. While our two party system is nowhere to be found in our nation’s charter, its spontaneous development represented one of the most ingenious aspects of the American experiment, for by institutionalizing and legitimizing political dissent it was here that the notion of a loyal opposition first reached full fruition.
Yes, institutional partisanship can be nasty and messy and chaotic, and as we’re currently seeing in the Senate health care debate, with strict party discipline, the minority can often exploit the system to obstruct both necessary reforms and the will of the people. But over the past 220 years, this system has also granted our nation extraordinary political stability, without which it never could have grown into the greatest political, economic and military power the world has ever known. It was through the institutionalized dissent of our two party system that we survived the Great Depression without succumbing to either communism or fascism, and went on to simultaneously defeat the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II, our democratic values largely intact.
Some might argue that if party politics was good enough for the so-called “greatest generation,” it should be good enough for us, but that really misses the point. Partisanship is part of human nature, and as such it will be part of any system of government we humans create, regardless of whether that self-realization is embodied in law.
The Times, the Municipal League and other cynics and do-gooders can rail all they want about the mere illusion of a nonpartisan council, but it can never be any more than that. Nor should it.
The whole thing’s a crock. For ages, Seattle has elected its mayor and city council by a process that I remember a commentator referring to 40 years ago as, “what we laughingly call ‘non-partisan politics'”. How the county’s voters allowed themselves to be conned into adopting the same thing makes me wonder if our species is really worth trying to save.
You are spot on! How soon people forget the history of this country and fall into the Republican trap of ‘non-partisanship’and how it will magically make everything non political and nicer. It never works that way, it’s one of the problems at the national level, democrats afraid to be democrats in this stupid era of non-partisanship! Thank you Goldy, you nailed it!
Non-partisanship in public office already exists and successfully so in many, many of the cities surrounding Seattle. It has its place and works quite well in solving of a lot of public problems and administration of public works.
What is delusional, to me, is the very idea that by changing the positions on the County Council to “non-partisan” in any year, we would change the nature of the people elected thereto under partisan banners. It’ll take some time — and some new candidates filling those seats — to break the assumptions and practices of partisanship exhibited by a county council that (not counting the 13 to 9 change) has enjoyed incumbency well over 95%, I think. Those permanent war chests work very well to dissuade competition, and those councilmembers are there pretty much until they retire.
I wish we could start over with the whole darned County charter … but that’s hoping for too much.
I burst out laughing this morning when I read that line in the Times’ editorial — “…eight members — four Democrats and four Republicans — or, four former Democrats and Republicans.”
Former? A have it from reliable sources that nobody on the county council, not even one, ever renounced his/her party affiliation after the public voted to elect county officials on a non-partisan ballot.
And Rep. Eddy, the re-election of county council incumbents won’t change until we change the way council district boundaries are adjusted every 10 years, after census data are published. We need to take control away from council-appointed puppets and give it to a group of citizens who represent the public, not just incumbent re-election committees.
Well, it might get more complicated, as Republicans are trying to decide whether or not to keep or abandon that label, or whether to split into two or more parties.
A friend of mine who’s about as wingnut as you can get has loudly proclaimed – since last year – that he is not, and has never been a Republican.
So with the Limbaugh/Beck/Palin group pushing out anybody who’s remotely a “moderate” within the Republican Party, you might end up with THREE parties on the right: “Conservative” (a misnomer given their reactionary stance on many issues), “Republican” (old-guard G.O.P. members), and “Independent Conservatives” (an attempt by moderate conservatives to re-capture some of the independent voters). I doubt such a split would become settled until after the 2010 elections – the Republicans will try hard to come together long enough to re-take some ground (like they did in 1994). If they aren’t successful then, a split is probably more likely.
Of course, on the left you have the Democratic Party, which usually defies any attempts to describe it as an “organized political party”. It DID manage to come together last election long enough to vote out most Republicans who were on the ticket, but there’s lots of pressures between the ranks who are threatening to sit out the next election if their demands aren’t better accomodated. I doubt that will end up in a real split, but it’s a possibility.
So what happens locally if the Republican Party splits into threes, and the Democratic Party splits into two halves? That’s probably more like the “non-partison” council envisioned by the Times, but it also looks a lot like the Israeli Knesset (sp?), where majorities are only formed by kow-towing to the demands of the small extremist parties.
Perfect Voter @4:
I’ve been wondering about this very issue. I know that LDs and Congressional Districts are redrawn by the Washington State Redistricting Commission; our state’s approach to that is really exemplary in its fairness and openness.
But the WSRC doesn’t do county-level redistricting. A quick look at the King County website showed me nothing about how County Council districts are constructed, nor about who does the construction. Does anybody know who’ll be responsible for drawing Council districts after the 2010 Census?
It isn’t a question of the 13 –> 9 change, even though it’s quite clear that the other Dems on the 13-person Council tried (and failed) to defeat Bob Ferguson for his vote to make the change by putting him up against another incumbent. Parenthetically, they doubled-down on that by setting it up so that he (unlike Phillips, Gossett, or Constantine) couldn’t run for County Executive while retaining his Council seat as a fallback.
It’s true that the Council districts are set up to produce a 5-4 Democratic advantage. The old districts were set up as a 7-6 split. The boundaries, in fact, are a gift to the Republicans … by rights, this heavily Democratic county should have six Democrats on the Council.
non partisan politics is like throwing all the animals of the zoo into one cage.
puts a lot of strain on the voters by requiring them to recognize their own politics instead of simply reading the little brass placards.
The local elite always prefer non-partisan races, so much easier to bankroll their candidate without competition from the parties.
Platypusrex256,
“non partisan politics is like throwing all the animals of the zoo into one cage.”
Wait, wait! Lemmme guess the punch line: Pretty soon the only ones left are the predators?
“puts a lot of strain on the voters by requiring them to recognize their own politics instead of simply reading the little brass placards.”
Oh…nevermind.
Deb @3,
I’m not saying these nonpartisan councils don’t work, just that it’s a sham. Those in the know all know who the Ds and Rs are. It’s no secret, and it’s no secret that they privately caucus.
So I’m not sure what the advantage is, hiding this information from the average voter?
@9
i was trying to think of something clever… thanks =)
maybe insert some joke about cougars?
I, too, had to laugh at the Seattle Times editorial. When will they get that the labels go with the politicians, not the elected position. The mayor of Seattle is a Democrat, as are all of the Seattle City Council members. How do I know? They each filled out a questionnaire for the King County Democrats affirming that they are Democrats and have not been affiliated with any other party for at least a year. Why would they do this? To gain the party’s endorsement and grassroots support.
Bob Ferguson pointed out that the King County 4-4 deadlock has no time limit and can therefore continue through next year, on any and all major budget and policy decisions. That unproductive meeting this week could well be the precursor to many stalemates.
Sarajane @12, State law, I believe it is, requires the governor to fill the vacancy, if it’s left unfilled for 60 days. She won’t appoint a Republican, labeled so or not.
N in Seattle @6, the county redistricting panel mimics the state-level process — a committee of 4, each party caucus appointing two members, and the 4 appointing a 5th who agrees to be non-voting.
Nobody gets appointed to these panels, at either state or county level, who don’t agree to serve the needs of incumbents and the parties they represent. The “public interest” has no seat at the table.
However it may look to observers and the media (all the panel meetings are open to the public of course) the REAL decisions are made behind closed doors.
With the county charter now officially “non-partisan”, the party references are omitted from the language establishing the redistricting committee — but we’d be naive to expect anything to really change.
Is The Seattle Times Editorial Board Stupid Or Disingenuous?
[X] I’ll vote for disingenuous every time.
I think the legislature should make all county offices “nonpartisan.” What’s good for King County is good for the other 38 counties, too.
@1 “makes me wonder if our species is really worth trying to save”
Why do you have to wonder? The answer is obvious! The quicker you humans are extinct, the sooner we rabbits can rationally govern this planet. Our agenda is the soul of simplicity: Eat, sleep, shit, and make more rabbits.
@4 You’re supposed to read The Republican Times editorial this way: “Four former Democrats and four Republicans.”
@10 “It’s no secret, and it’s no secret that they privately caucus.”
Ah, but wait! Isn’t that what caused the R’s to sue the D’s on the Shoreline City Council for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act?
The lawsuit was a stalemate, and Shoreline taxpayers ended up paying both sides’ legal costs, which came to nearly a million dollars.
And it accomplished absolutely nothing.
@10 – Goldy, maybe that happens on other councils? Sure as hell did NOT happen on the Kirkland council, 1994-1999 … and I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen through Larry Springer’s tenure into 2003. Most of us on the Kirkland council at that time were socially liberal, fiscally – uh – conservative (it wasn’t a dirty word then). YES, Sants Contreras was a known Republican, but the rest of us tended to that middling independent place. And we worked together quite well, without regard to whether someone was R or D, based on the issue. I still think it was a pretty darned good way to run our city.
Yes, Deb, in a small city like Kirkland, where candidates for office and electeds can have close contact with their voters, non-partisanship can work as you say. But Kirkland has less than 10 percent the population of Seattle, and even less than that of King County. But it’s much less likely to happen in huge constituencies where the media and parties serve as filters and communicators between electeds and the populace.
I remember some years back when the Dems were in the minority, that we tried to make the King County Council non-partisan.
Since I heard R’s declare for a caretaker in the position, maybe the D’s should put up Sharon Nelson and see how hypocritical the R’s are.