Week in Review: April 11, 2025 - with Lex Vaughn

“Thousands rally in Seattle to protest Trump administration actions” by Nate Sanford from Cascade PBS

“WA college students’ visas revoked with no notice by Trump administration” by Paige Cornwell, Jessica Fu and Kai Uyehara from The Seattle Times

“WA employee union head blasts Ferguson as ‘Ratfink’ over budget stance” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times

“Ferguson Ignites Revenue Battle with State Democrats, Threatening Veto” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“Washington Is Now Closer Than Ever to Rent Stabilization” by Hannah Krieg from The Burner

King County Proposition No. 1 Regional Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Levy | King County Elections

ELECTION 2025: Ballots going out for April 22 special election with one measure to decide | West Seattle Blog

King County Ballot Measures | April 2025 Progressive Voters Guide

“NEWS GLEAMS | REAL ID Requirements Begin May 7; King County Votes on Fingerprint ID Levy” by Vee Hua from South Seattle Emerald

April ballot has one bubble to fill: decision on King County fingerprint ID levy renewal | Capitol Hill Seattle Blog

“Concerns over facial recognition endanger a boring old levy” by Manola Secaira from Cascade PBS

2023 Annual Report of the King County Regional AFIS Program

“Tensions between some members of Seattle City Council spill into public view” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Port of Seattle asks court to overturn City Council’s Sodo housing bill” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's co-host: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. Welcome back!

[00:00:50] Lex Vaughn: Hey, always good to be back - getting nerdy and wonky with you on here.

[00:00:54] Crystal Fincher: Always good to have you. And routinely - just like The Needling is one of the best things in existence right now. And I'm sure everyone listening reads The Needling religiously. And if you don't, you definitely need to be - just to capture little moments of joy and making it through everything that we are having to make it through now - makes it easier.

[00:01:22] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, some days I want to write about what's going on, and some days I'm like - I'm pretty sure everyone just wants to think about anything else. And here's this really absurd joke instead.

[00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. The amount of times I have laughed out loud while just sitting alone at Needling headlines. It happens so often - so thank you for that.

But we will talk about a number of things that have happened in the past week. Starting out - protests. Thousands of people across the state - in Seattle and beyond - turned out for protests last weekend to protest the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and what they say they're unhappy with. What happened and what were people saying?

[00:02:12] Lex Vaughn: It was a huge turnout across the country and people definitely showed up here in Seattle. I think a lot of people would consider it more like a rally than a protest - that's a whole other conversation, but-

[00:02:26] Crystal Fincher: It really is.

[00:02:26] Lex Vaughn: I really like how some people have kind of brought a nuanced take to that. Ijeoma Oluo posted a video that I related to where it's like - I think some of us who've done a little bit more show up to a rally sometimes, go - This is nothing. This isn't a real protest. You're not really doing enough to change the direction of things. But it is worth it to just gather people, and get people pumped up, and to build community and support for resistance. I think the cold hard fact is we're gonna have to do a little bit more than write funny signs and show up at Seattle Center over the next few years, but it was an important weekend for just rallying people and owning that there is resistance in this moment. And I'm sure just kind of gave people a boost spiritually - just to pump each other up. And I have to say the signs were on point. I loved so many of the signs. There was a great local sign with the Space Needle in the background, that said - Can't wait for the season finale of White POTUS.

[00:03:45] Crystal Fincher: Oh my goodness.

[00:03:47] Lex Vaughn: So I got to hand it to some of these sign writers. I'm like - That's pretty good.

[00:03:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, very good. And I think you hit the nail on the head with - I don't know what kind of impact this is going to have on the actions of the federal administration. But what a lot of people talked about was that it was very useful and heartening for people to see that they weren't alone - whether it was in their fear, or their anger, or their confusion, indignation - that they have lots of community members that are not just feeling the same thing that they're feeling, but willing to come and stand up and say that and stand shoulder to shoulder and say that. And even beyond - Seattle was a huge gathering - I think they said they estimated 20,000 people turned out in Seattle. But there were people in Edmonds, and in Port Angeles, and in Olympia, and in SeaTac. And especially in some of those suburbs and smaller cities, cities in red areas, a lot of people found it heartening to see that they had neighbors there who felt the same way they did. And not everybody realized that was the case - sometimes when you just look at how the votes turn out in some areas. So letting people know that they aren't alone and that there are people willing to fight, I think, is a very useful thing.

And beyond that, just even - there's a lot of people responsible for a lot of things. Besides the federal administration, in addition to the federal administration - whether it's our Congresspeople, or the mayor, or city council, or county council, or state representatives - and them all seeing so many people care enough in their community to turn out and make their voices heard. I think caught the attention of a lot of people and realizing that some of these voices that they're hearing, complaints that they're hearing, fears that they're hearing, are not just happening in a vacuum. They're not few and far between. That these are pretty broad and widespread community concerns.

[00:06:01] Lex Vaughn: And it is something when people who don't usually show up to a protest are at the protest. I think one of the signs was like, It's so bad the introverts are out here. It does go to show that even people who don't usually show up to these things are out here - it means something's going on. So something can build from that. And there was a boycott against Target at the end of February because of getting rid of the DEI thing. At that moment, I was like, I don't know if this is really worth it. Or I was rolling my eyes a little bit at that movement, too, because I was like - Oh, really? Are you just beginning to realize shopping at corporations is bad? Like, you should shop more often at small businesses? But that small action did have an impact - for weeks, actually. Target's taken a big financial hit from that. So I think we're in a moment where it's just - everybody needs to take the action that they can, the ones that they can do comfortably to make an impact. Because I think it's very easy to feel powerless in this moment, and it's just not true that we don't have power. No matter how awful our presidential administration is, there's always something - especially that we can do on a local level - and we all have control over how we spend our money. So, yeah, these things are just good reminders that we always still have power. We have our voice, we have our dollar, and we can use them in effective ways.

[00:07:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The Trump administration has canceled the visas of at least 15 current international students and recent graduates of colleges and universities across Washington state. University of Washington officials just learned that nine visas were revoked when they ran a status check in the federal government database of international students. Five are current students, four are in post-grad training. Seattle University reported that three recent graduates who are completing post-graduation training had their visas revoked. In Spokane, Gonzaga University, also during a recent review, found that two international students' records had been terminated and their visas revoked. A Gonzaga leader said - With their legal status to remain in the country revoked, these students have been put in difficult and uncertain situations, in some cases being ordered to leave the country with little notice or risk of detainment or arrest.

And so it is a challenge that people are dealing with. These students are among hundreds across the country who are stripped of their legal status and ordered by the Department of Homeland Security to leave the country. The University of Washington says they plan to provide the affected students access to legal services that are paid for by their student fees, as well as mental health and academic support. They're saying in this reporting by The Seattle Times - Paige Cornwell, Jessica Fu and Kai Uyehara saying - We're deeply concerned about the well-being of these students and graduates and are working to support them. International students and scholars are essential and valued members of our university, and they contribute immensely to our community, state, and nation. The UW will continue to support them and provide the resources they need to be able to learn, teach, and succeed here. This is obviously troubling to a lot of people in community. This came up during the protests repeatedly - was a motivation for a lot of people showing up to those protests and rallies over the weekend. What are your thoughts about this?

[00:09:53] Lex Vaughn: What I've heard is that a lot of these students found out their visas had been revoked - and these colleges said that they had also not been given any notice that this was going to happen to their students. I heard, I think on a KUOW report, that there's some suspicion that AI is being used to comb through records and decide who gets their visa revoked. Because in a lot of cases, it's just really random. In some cases, it seems like they don't have a criminal record or something, they might have had some sort of interaction. But then some people just haven't had any law enforcement issues ever, and they're getting their visas revoked. So I think there's a lot of uncertainty about why some of these people are even getting their visa revoked. Obviously, it seems like the prominent reason - if you look at what's happening nationally - is that a lot of these people have some sort of record, maybe online or in person, of being opposed to what Israel is doing to Palestine right now. There's more reporting recently that more visas will be revoked if there's any social media comments that are "anti-Semitic." And the use of "anti-Semitic" there, I think, is just - there's tons of Jewish groups across the world that are against what Israel is doing to Palestine, because it's sick. I think it's a genocide. I think it's cowardly to not say that it is, because it's pretty clearly ethnic cleansing on every level. But yeah, it seems like people are getting their visas revoked just for saying that they're against that atrocity.

So I'm very worried about everyone who's getting their visa revoked right now. But then also, just as an American, I just think this is a huge loss to us, our country, to treat these people this way. Because these are some of the most courageous, talented people this stuff is happening, too. It's a loss for our culture as well for them to not be here. And it's just a really sad irony that a lot of these people probably came to America because they thought this would be a place that's more free for them to do their work. And our government is saying - Ha, nope. And it's really sad to see our country not be a bastion of free speech that we like to say that we are.

[00:12:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, or free speech as it is being used in this administration, having a very different definition than one most people or those familiar with the First Amendment are used to. We have seen Secretary of State Marco Rubio stand up in defense of these revocations of visas, and in fact, promising that there would be more - essentially saying that if people disagree with America, or what they believe is American thought or beliefs - as defined by them - then they are up for having their visa revoked without any notice or, essentially, recourse. And-

[00:13:04] Lex Vaughn: Really, that's just like - it seems like some of these people are lucky if that's all that happens. They're not literally disappeared. People are being disappeared right now.

[00:13:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's challenging. And specifically for students, for people who have various statuses - one of the biggest challenges, and that we're seeing here, is that it is not clearly defined what is inbounds to this administration and what is out of bounds. Even if people disagreed with that, it would make things much easier to navigate because you would know what to them is considered permitted and what to them is not. And to have that be undefined leaves just all of that up to interpretation, leads to a lot of unease, lack of clarity. Lots of people do feel like - and it seems pretty clear that a number of these are related to pro-Palestine activism - but some there doesn't seem to be much of any indication. So there's a lot going through our court processes to try and address and mitigate this. We will see what, if anything, results from that. But it's a very uneasy time and with a lot of answers that just don't exist, but consequences that do.

[00:14:26] Lex Vaughn: But obviously, the overall intention is just widespread intimidation. It's almost more effective to not make it specific - just follow these rules. It's like, just don't talk about what's happening in Palestine at all. We got to not follow suit on that. And especially if you have more privilege than someone who's here on a visa, we need to speak out louder. Because if more of us are just saying the obvious - that killing innocent people every day with American paid for and made bombs - just saying that's wrong. The more of us who just say that plainly, the easier it is to protect everyone speaking out. Gotta try.

[00:15:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see. Now I want to talk about Washington state dealing with their budget and new news and reporting by Jim Brunner of The Seattle Times that a Washington employee union head blasted Governor Bob Ferguson as a 'Ratfink' over his budget.

[00:15:34] Lex Vaughn: [laughter] He deserves all the hate.

[00:15:36] Crystal Fincher: As we talked about on the show last week, Governor Bob Ferguson said that he opposes a wealth tax. Those wealth taxes are currently proposed by the state House and state Senate budgets that are working their way through the legislative process right now. But Bob Ferguson said - Hey, if you pass those and they wind up on my desk, I'm going to veto it - which has caused a lot of consternation and discussion because the state is facing a budget deficit and either it will be closed through cuts or through new revenue. With important context that Washington state is 49th out of 50 states in terms of how regressive our tax system is - meaning the people at the bottom of the income ladder, those making the lowest incomes, pay the highest percentage of their incomes in taxes, and those at the very top pay the lowest percentage of their income in taxes. In Washington state, we don't have an income tax, so the taxes we pay are often more regressive and are in terms of sales, taxes, fees, assessments. It doesn't seem huge in any individual element, but when you look at the fees and level of sales taxes, various business taxes - those are all trying to make up for the fact that we don't have the revenue in our state from an income tax. And that is very, very beneficial for the wealthy. And actually, it turns out to be worse for people making moderate to low incomes.

So here, as we face this in our budget - the Washington Federation of State Employees, the state's largest public employee union, are pretty unhappy. Mike Yestramski, the head of the Washington Federation of State Workers, or WFSE laid into Ferguson in a press conference and Ferguson saying that he would not sign a wealth tax. Yestramski said - "The legislature needs to pass a budget that doesn't harm state workers and DARE Ratfink Robbie Ferguson to veto it. And when he does, I expect ALL of labor to join WFSE in calling for a revocation of his endorsement and a real effort to fund a primary challenger for him." Yestramski added that he would "do everything in my power to make [Ferguson] a one-term governor and a footnote in political history." Very interesting. This came on the heels of reportedly, Yestramski saying that Bob Ferguson has not yet met with them - which would be unusual for a Democratic governor, especially one that appears to have met with several other people and interests. But notable that he had not met with them, and that he had met with aides for the governor instead - doesn't seem to sit well with the Washington Federation of State Employees. Also, state employees are being asked to take a furlough - essentially a pay cut - and Ferguson feeling that that is acceptable, but a wealth tax is not acceptable.

Now, Ferguson has said that his opposition to a wealth tax is because it appears to be unconstitutional to him. He feels like it would be challenged in court and not win. Although he did seem to say maybe he would consider a much smaller wealth tax - I don't know why that wouldn't encounter the same constitutional challenges. Does that mean the objection is really just to that tax and not about the constitutionality? Ferguson has not said he's opposed to any new revenue at all. He says that potentially there is revenue that he could support - that has the legislature talking about a high-earners payroll tax, similar to the JumpStart Tax in the City of Seattle, looking at applying that statewide to raise revenue. There are a number of things they're considering and that's making its way through the legislature. But certainly, any Democratic governor is not going to be thrilled or shouldn't be thrilled to see one of their bastions of support and of Democratic support in the party, like a state worker union, blasting him as a 'Ratfink,' threatening to primary him, calling on the rest of labor to not support him. This is a real significant disagreement that might come with some real consequences, depending on how it plays out. What do you see here?

[00:20:25] Lex Vaughn: Even before the Trump administration came in here, it was pretty clear that we were going to have this budget shortfall of - I've heard different estimates - is it $12 billion or more?

[00:20:38] Crystal Fincher: $16 billion, but the way we do - the budget deficit is calculated is different. So that's not an annual number - that's over the next four years, essentially. So that's not the one-year number, but there is - regardless of the number and the length - it is a shortfall that they have to deal with right now.

[00:20:59] Lex Vaughn: But from Day One, with Ferguson - very boldly - basically being a textbook DINO, Democrat In Name Only. It seems like he's trying so hard to make Republicans like him. And it would be a slap in the face of all the Democrats that voted for him at any moment, but especially under this administration - you're aligning yourself that tightly to people on the right? It's really disappointing, to say the least. And it's also just really impractical because we were facing this budget shortfall before this administration even came in. And now it's clear there's going to be a lot of really drastic situations where there's going to be some major programs in our state that get less federal funding. And this is not a moment to do an austerity budget and think that we can't get through this without any new revenue. He tries to brand himself as like this practical accountant type or something. It's like - This doesn't pencil out. You're not being practical at all about this situation. We need more revenue, and we're a state with some major billionaires in it. I'm so tired of people like Ferguson acting like - Oh, no. What if this handful of super rich people in our state have to put this little drop in the bucket for us to keep our public schools open? I don't feel bad for them. And when they threaten to move - where? What, middle of Texas? - because of a tiny tax they might have to pay here to keep our state financially solvent, I don't even buy the threat that they would move. Obviously, like Bezos did - so maybe some would, I don't know. But for the most part, I think we should bet on our state a little bit more. This is a beautiful state. People live here for more reasons than just no state income tax - it might be a perk for several people and corporations. But there's a lot that brings people here, and we need to know our worth. Let's just tax at least this group of - what, like 4,000 people that might have to pay that wealth tax. And it's just really frustrating that there's actually so much support for it. All of the research shows that there's a voter support for it, the legislature is supporting it. And really, the only roadblock is Governor Ferguson. So screw that guy. [laughter] I'm going to keep on roasting him mercilessly. He deserves it. [laughter]

[00:23:48] Crystal Fincher: You are not the only one roasting him mercilessly. Also saw some other people bring up that in our State Constitution, as has been reiterated by our state Supreme Court, we have a paramount duty to fully fund education in our state, which we are clearly not currently doing. That is unconstitutional. And yet this budget proposed by the governor also does not make enough progress on that to seemingly bring that in line with what would be constitutional. So it really looks like this is an issue of disagreeing with the wealth tax. We'll see where that goes. But really, this feeling in these statements by the Washington Federation of State Employees, looks like this is not a new thing - it's been developing, it's been a long-term coming. Yestramski said the governor had a "ghost" approach while he was governing. And then he said he would elbow people aside "Charles Barkley-style" when they were in a room together [while campaigning] to make sure that he would get the union support. Now, WFSE represents 50,000 state and other public sector workers.

[00:24:58] Lex Vaughn: And a lot of them showed up yesterday at the Capitol - they showed up in force.

[00:25:02] Crystal Fincher: They actually did. And showed up for a rally or protest at the Capitol, where a lot of them made their voices heard - saying that they're questioning whether Ferguson is even a labor-friendly candidate.

[00:25:16] Lex Vaughn: I think he's just, from Day One, destroyed a lot of trust with anybody on the left in this state. And honestly, it's just astounding just how deliberate it's been. And what a 180 it is from Jay Inslee, who you could nitpick and say wasn't perfect, but he was a very well-liked governor. But I think Bob Ferguson is going to bait everyone to force him to do some sort of tax. I don't know all the legal ins and outs of this, but I'm hearing people talk about doing an initiative. Because it's just - Hey, there is support for this in the legislature. If you're going to veto it, all avenues will be explored here for making this happen. So I also just think it's really unwise on his part to just obstinately be against some of these proposals. His flat statement of just not doing more taxes right now is insane - it doesn't pencil out without a lot of pain that he's not going to be forgiven for.

[00:26:20] Crystal Fincher: So this week, Ferguson did say an all-cuts budget would harm core state services. And he has not said that he's opposed to all and any revenue, but he has flatly said he does oppose the wealth tax. Coalition of business groups of our state's largest corporations, including Microsoft and Amazon, is praising Ferguson for holding the line on spending.

[00:26:45] Lex Vaughn: His donors - Brad Smith, what up? [laughter] I really just have to think that some of those corporations are a major reason Ferguson is doing what he's doing. Because he's very not liked right now. So there have to be some big deep-pocketed hitters giving him a pat on the back in the meantime. Because I don't know why else he would do this period - doesn't make sense.

[00:27:12] Crystal Fincher: So we will continue to follow that and the evolutions of the House and Senate budgets here in our state to see where that lands and what we can look forward to, or if we're moving forward to a veto threat showdown if those wind up in the budget. So stay tuned.

Also related - not necessarily to the budget, but certainly with state legislation - we are closer than ever to rent stabilization. This was covered by Hannah Krieg in The Burner, new independent publication in the area. But really, a rent stabilization bill, essentially saying - Hey, landlords, you can't jack up rent by 75%, by 50%. This has happened to a lot of people, happened to one of my neighbors. These huge increases and rent prices that we've seen across the state that people are having such a hard time dealing with - with housing prices already being so high, the rent already being so high, and then having it increase by really high amounts has been damaging to our communities, to our economy, destabilizing, causing a lot of displacement. And the legislature looks committed to passing something to deal with that. The attempt started last year, it's continuing into this year with House Bill 1217, which would cap rent hikes at 7%, making it through our legislature right now. Has passed some key hurdles and is in the final stages here - and a lot of people are hoping it passes. How do you see this?

[00:29:00] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, I'm proud of the Democratic legislature pushing forward bills like this. And it's hopeful that there's a real path forward for this. I think it would be a real gift to the state right now to at least pass something like that. Because just this week, we experienced so much financial or just economic volatility from the tariffs happening. No matter what kind of line of work you're in, I think we're feeling like - Wow, at any moment, things could just really get shaken up here. I don't know in what direction. But I think it helps all of us if protections like that are in place that keep people from having just a sudden insane cost of living increase, or just price of keeping their housing. It should have been passed like a billion years ago, but if we can get it now, that would be really great and lessen some of the anxiety about the economy.

[00:30:01] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Representative Nicole Macri from Seattle's 43rd District is the bill's lead sponsor. She has been fighting for this and shepherding it through the process. She's staying optimistic. Now, it has had some amendments that have watered down the original legislation somewhat. Senator Lisa Wellman had an amendment that created some carve-outs for new construction, so people in newer buildings may not be able to receive the full benefit of this legislation. There have been some other attempts - Rep. Macri said that they voted down 18 bad amendments, which is a lot. So there have been a lot of attempts to weaken this bill. Few made it through, a lot didn't. Still would be beneficial for so many people in the state - hopefully it survives intact from here.

[00:30:59] Lex Vaughn: And I just want to highlight that I really like the way Hannah Krieg wrote about some of these amendments in her new publication, The Burner. She said - On Monday, the committee voted down 18 "bad amendments," Macri noted. And then Hannah writes - "Bad" is one way to put it. I might have suggested "unhinged," "diabolical," or "class-war inspiring" amendments. So there's a little bit of a war over these amendments, but I'm glad that a lot of the bad ones are getting dunked on, at least a little bit.

[00:31:35] Crystal Fincher: Yes. So it is now heading to the Senate Rules Committee. If it clears that, it'll move to the floor for a vote. So lawmakers have until next Wednesday to get this done. Lots of people are paying attention closely - we will see what happens from here.

Also, a lot of people were surprised to get ballots in the mail, to get ballot alerts - alerting them to the fact that we have a special election coming up on April 22nd. Ballots are due by then about fingerprint ID technology from the county. What is this? What is happening with this vote coming up on April 22nd?

[00:32:23] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I got that ballot. And then I looked online for information and it was not easy to figure out what this even was - even though it seems like an old levy that has just been getting passed since the 1980s. I couldn't find anything the day it came in, at least. I had to look in a West Seattle Blog comment section to try to narrow down what my opinion was on it. And what I've gathered so far is just, even without going down the full rabbit hole, the levy is to fund a law enforcement cooperative fund for IDing fingerprints, and it funds technology for identifying little body markers. And it's involved in facial recognition technology as well, isn't it? Something like that.

[00:33:18] Crystal Fincher: It was written so that it could potentially involve that before. And lots of people have that question now, and that doesn't seem to be completely clear yet. It is the Automated Fingerprint Identification System to identify fingerprints, handprints that is used by law enforcement agencies across King County. This was last approved in 2018. This levy is actually for a smaller amount than the existing levy, but says that it will support enhanced forensic fingerprint and palm print tools for identification. And that it has responded to more than 5,000 crime scenes, processed nearly 26,000 items of evidence in the past two years. And the system currently holds nearly 3 million identification records. So we'll see what that is - but lots of people have lots of questions, and it doesn't look like it's very specific. There is not an organized opposition to this, like we see with some levies. So we have the statement from proponents of this, it is currently in effect. I've seen people be concerned that - Hey, this is funding more law enforcement. We already see, in terms of funding allocation and scenarios, that it appears to be unbalanced to a lot of people - so they're questioning the priority of funding this over other things.

[00:34:50] Lex Vaughn: And just the fact that it's being done in this format as a one-issue ballot that got sent to us in the middle of April. So that alone is firing off a little red flag of - Well, I don't think the people doing this are really thinking about being financially responsible with tax money here, because it's expensive to do a whole special election. Why wasn't this on the fall ballot? I have to think that they thought there was some benefit to doing it this way, but it's kind of costly. And I don't think that was a smart thing to do considering that, when I just do a little bit of superficial research on this to understand what it is, I'm like - Why does this kind of thing need a whole separate levy? I don't understand why this wouldn't be part of funding at the state level or a county level. I don't understand why this wouldn't already be part of a law enforcement budget. When I read about it, I didn't quite get it, but there was some vague explanation of - Oh, well, there's smaller towns and unincorporated communities that need funding for identification, and they can't get it another way. I just don't buy this. How is it that a county sheriff's department or our state law enforcement doesn't have the funds for this kind of work? Why wouldn't that already be integrated into a law enforcement agency's budget? I don't get it. And it does seem like it's just this other easy way for law enforcement to have a ton of money. And so I rejected it because I think a lot of departments are already getting too much money the way it is. Bob Ferguson - the only thing he's advocated for adding funding to is law enforcement, for some reason. So I'm not for this 'cause I know that these departments have a law enforcement budget. Why isn't this part of their budget? I don't understand why there's a whole levy for this weird, specific thing. 'Cause if you think about it, it's like - Okay, then they could do a levy for everything they want to fund. We need a levy for snack room donuts. What? Why are you funding it that way? This doesn't make sense.

[00:37:16] Crystal Fincher: I also wonder why this is not funded out of their regular general budget, especially going beyond the fingerprinting and some of the other identification technologies. I don't know that answer. We have made some calls, pulled together some preliminary information, have not gotten that information yet. And it's actually worrisome to see this on the ballot and there being so little information about it. And the information that does exist - seemingly just mirroring the language of the levy, without much additional reporting surrounding it yet for this existing levy. I see that it is included in the Progressive Voters Guide without any statement in opposition, and it largely mirrors the language of the levy. And also says that it can be used to exonerate people also potentially. The Progressive Voters Guide ends with saying - AFIS, A-F-I-S, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, has been an asset to victims, defendants, and the community since 1986. Vote Yes to renew funding for this important technology that keeps our community safe. That's what they are saying.

In a 2023 annual report of the King County AFIS program, which we will include in the resources on the website, it says that as far as the technology is concerned, it stores nearly 3 million records for matching to incoming and unidentified prints, 56 live scan devices deployed throughout the region capture prints, photos, and demographics. The data collected is transmitted electronically to the local, state, and federal identification systems. And 295 mobile ID devices allow officers in the field to quickly identify people without the need to transport them to a secondary location. One of the questions that we have out is - Yes, this does share information. As this says, it is able to transmit information to local, state, and federal identification systems. So what is that data sharing like? Are they directly sharing information with the FBI? With ICE and Customs and Border Control?

[00:39:38] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, the environment and the context for passing this has certainly changed, especially in the last two or three months - seeing what the Trump administration is willing to let ICE and other federal agencies do to people, completely unconstitutionally. So I think it was pretty - whoever's putting this levy out there - kind of naive about how willing people are to support this right now. Because I don't think there's a lot of trust in law enforcement, especially with data like that.

[00:40:14] Crystal Fincher: It's a big question. The King County Council is the entity responsible for putting this on the ballot. So they approved this and this timing for this levy. I also find the timing to be curious, particularly when we're talking about budget deficits at the county level - and opting into a one-issue special election in April for all of the county is questionable. And I wonder why that happens - sometimes when we see issues like this, just politically, it comes from people being afraid of putting multiple revenue initiatives or ballot measures on, feeling that people get ballot fatigue or tax fatigue. If there are multiple revenue measures on one ballot, it makes them all less likely to succeed - that is not supported by data. And so it wouldn't surprise me if that was part of the reasoning behind this, but it would be disappointing because it's not supported by data.

Councilmember Rob Dembowski was the person responsible for expanding this levy beyond purely just fingerprints - so talking about capturing photos, other identification technology. According to reporting from Cascade PBS back in 2018, when the last levy was put up to a vote, quotes Rob Dembowski talking about expanding it to include some of those identification technologies. He said that there were privacy protections built into this, but we don't see any detail addressing that in the current levy explanation. And so we would be eager to receive more information on that. And if we receive it, we will share with you.

[00:42:08] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. I'd also like to hear more about - I don't know how this system interacts with AI - because I think that's become really problematic. But I think AI is being used really irresponsibly right now in a lot of different environments, including law enforcement. One other thought about this levy. This is just a suspicion, but it seems like this levy has just kind of been approved casually since, like the 1980s. It's like - Oh, just re-up the same thing that has been funded for like a couple decades now. I wonder if part of the reason this ended up a levy in the 1980s at first is - in the 1980s, this was really like whoa, innovative crime fighting and technology. And maybe it just dazzled people so much in the 1980s that it got its own levy. But now I think we're a lot less dazzled by how our personal information is being used by law enforcement, how technology is being used in law enforcement. Again, I question why this is funded through a levy, period. I don't understand why this wouldn't be integrated into the operations of any law enforcement agency in the first place. I just kind of assumed it was.

[00:43:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a good and valid question that we were hoping to have an answer to by the time we recorded that we don't. The other issue that I've seen discussed in a variety of places and formats is - Okay, so if this doesn't pass, then what? And that actually influencing the decisions that some people make. There are people who are saying additional funding for this - figure it out within the current budget, you don't need an additional one. And some people expressing concerns that - Okay, so if we don't fund this, it's essentially to them is going to feel like a loss of funding or something unfunded now that they're going to have to find funding from an existing source. And given all recent evidence, folks able to fund this, whether at the county or if it falls on individual municipal entities - since this is a regional shared resource - is that they would just pull the money out of the general fund, they would pull money from other things, like we've seen the Seattle City Council and so many other city councils do - taking funding from housing or from public services. And lowering the funding there, taking that money and redirecting it to fund public safety elements there. And so feeling like to - a vote No on this, if it doesn't pass, would essentially just set people up for having the money taken from somewhere else that they feel is valuable. I don't know if that's what would happen. Looks like that probably would happen based on recent actions. Is that enough of a reason for people who would be inclined to vote No, to vote Yes, or people who would be inclined to vote Yes, to vote No? I don't know.

[00:45:16] Lex Vaughn: I very much want a reporter to do a deep dive on this. I think it's worth it, even if it seems like this random mid-April special election thing. I want someone to really give me a solid report reevaluating what this is right now.

[00:45:33] Crystal Fincher: I also would really like that. And if we happen to get those questions answered before we see that, we'll just put it together and report out. So stay tuned. But that is on your ballot. Your ballot is in your mailbox if you haven't already received it. If you haven't received your ballot, call for a new one because you should have received it by now. But you can send in your ballot anytime, either in a drop box or mailing it - does not require a stamp. It just must be postmarked by April 22nd or dropped into a ballot drop box by 8pm on April 22nd.

Also want to talk about an article written by David Kroman in The Seattle Times this week - Tensions between some members of Seattle City Council spilling into public view. This is coming on the heels of a pretty contentious battle leading up to the passage of new legislation to allow new housing in the city's industrial district - but that exposed a number of faults that weren't super apparent to a lot of other people. In addition to very vocal and strenuous opposition from the Port of Seattle, other councilmembers found fault here. Not just with Sara Nelson and her support of this legislation, but also with some of the administrative maneuvers used to advance and ultimately pass this legislation - with Dan Strauss, Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, and even Councilmember Bob Kettle voicing opposition not just to the policy, but also to the process involved with doing this. And highlighting that there may have been some missteps, and certainly things that are not precedented in this way with this type of legislation. This is coming on the heels of other contentious legislation - proposals to rewrite wage laws for small businesses and app-based delivery drivers, lower the minimum wage effectively. A bill to talk about a local capital gains tax, which fell short by a slight vote. So we're seeing some fragmentation, some splinters in ways that some people weren't necessarily anticipating - viewing the majority as a solid block. But the solidness of that block is in question, as some of these other maneuvers have taken place and have proceeded. What do you think about this?

[00:48:18] Lex Vaughn: It seems like, in general, especially Sara Nelson is becoming increasingly unliked across the board. I think for those of us who have not liked Sara Nelson for a while, this is kind of funny to see - especially the way that she's treated my district's councilmember, Dan Strauss. I think earlier on in this set of City Council members doing their work, it seemed like people were just kind of aligning with Sara Nelson - going along to get along with this more conservative agenda. And going along with some of that stuff is still not working out for people like Dan Strauss, because she, I think, took him out of a committee, replaced him with no warning. And then it also seems like, in other contexts, Sara Nelson is just blindsiding people with like the SODO or the Stadium District housing thing that she kind of barreled through - that blindsided a lot of people. In general, it just seems like - even though her apparent mission in joining the City Council was to make the City Council more civil, it seems like she's anything but that. She's not doing the very basic things to move forward legislation in a collaborative way with her colleagues or most of Seattle voters. I don't like her. I really want her replaced as soon as possible.

[00:49:47] Crystal Fincher: It's interesting with this article. And to me, there are a few different things happening here. One, issues exposing fault lines in policy. And those things happen, and there are disagreements over policy - I've certainly found myself on the opposite side of a number of councilmembers where they landed, and sometimes on the same side. But I think one of the major things that we're seeing is Sara Nelson is a council president who is using the power that she has. We are seeing Donald Trump right now use the power that he has. Use it in ways that people who preceded them haven't taken advantage of - haven't used, haven't thought was appropriate, and then potentially pushing the bounds of that power and kind of daring people to do something about it. And finding that a lot of times, there's a shortage of people willing to do something about it. And so that just reinforces the power that they have and their willingness to use that power in similar ways. Or even go beyond, if there is no one willing to stop it, or no way to stop it for those that feel like it should. Now, on this council, Sara Nelson is not operating alone or in a vacuum. The Council majority generally agrees with Councilmember Nelson. And so it's not a situation generally with Sara Nelson, where the majority of the council is finding fault with what she's doing. She has a number of allies there. And those who have been in the minority have been ignored, have been - in the case of someone like Tammy Morales - insulted. Many people would characterize it as bullied - having resources that they used to have access to, taken away, punished for disagreeing. And it looks like Dan Strauss perhaps has found himself on the opposite side of that. The interesting thing about - when you align yourself with someone, not because of ideology, but because they have power, that can and usually will eventually be used in ways that you don't see fit, but that you no longer have the ability to stop or influence or do anything with. I think we've seen that in some of those circumstances.

But kind of beyond the issues of these fault lines, like between Councilmember Strauss and Sara Nelson or Maritza Rivera or others, is - I think one thing that is not covered as much as it should be and sometimes gets misclassified under the umbrella of an ideological disagreement are issues of competence or compliance - skill issues, right?

[00:52:40] Lex Vaughn: [laughter] You're saying it so much nicer than I want to.

[00:52:43] Crystal Fincher: [laughter] The problem with categorizing issues of competence or compliance as issues of disagreement over policy is that it shortchanges everyone. Those issues should concern you, especially if you agree with the policies being put forward - because the issues of competence and skill directly impact whether the policy that you're in favor of gets implemented successfully and provides the benefits that you believe they will and that they're sold as providing. So even with things like police hiring - now, certainly there are disagreements over whether we should be hiring more police or not, whether we should instead be using and investing some of that money into community violence interruption or other areas that impact public safety and the realm of public safety that aren't necessarily officers, that are different things that work in conjunction with police to make a safer community. But there are certainly a number of people who feel like more police are necessary. They've made commitments to hire new police. And we've heard for the past three years, from both Sara Nelson and Mayor Bruce Harrell - Hey, we want to hire more police, we commit to hire more police. And as has been making the rounds in a number of different formats, satirical and otherwise - last year, after spending millions upon millions of dollars, all of that effort to hire resulted in one, literally one, net new officer. Doesn't seem very efficient. Doesn't seem like they're delivering on their promises, or that the policies that they passed are delivering the benefits that they were sold as doing.

But what was frustrating for me and many other people who were watching that entire process unfold from the beginning was that there were issues of competence and compliance and skill that made it obvious that they were going to have problems hiring people, achieving their stated goals, and delivering results with what they said they were doing - because they did not go about the crafting of that legislation, investing in the types of things that have shown to be successful in hiring officers. Or they didn't address issues that have shown to be a hindrance to hiring officers - that were poisoning and damaging the culture. There were several things that they just didn't listen to directly from officers on SPD, from public safety experts, from people in the community. Some of the basic stakeholdering that councilmembers, public servants need to do in order to craft solid legislation, to hear from people impacted from the police department to the community, and hearing, understanding, and responding to the challenges that they are presenting you with. So even if you wanted to see more police officers hired - the people who were voting for that, the people who were crafting that policy did not craft it skillfully or compliantly. And that has harmed their ability to hire more officers - to do what they said they would do. And the challenge is, then you hear everything but themselves get blamed for that. When all along people were calling out - Hey, this isn't going to work. But if you just say - Well, they just say it's not going to work because they're haters, or they just say it's not going to work because they disagree - you're really shooting your own self in the foot if you are a proponent of that policy. Because you're not hearing the reason why - hey, even if you want that to happen, here are the problems with it. If you wanted that to happen and you wanted to succeed, this is what you would do differently. This is what the law says you need to do. This is what other people who have done that successfully have done. But that kind of advice, reason - we've seen so many times where the experts hired, subject matter experts, people with lived experience, people impacted by these policies are frequently not even invited to be part of the conversation. But the feedback that they provide is not listened to - it's disputed, it's discounted, it's just not treated as valid. And somehow, their intuition and circle of friends and donors - they feel do have all that knowledge and expertise, and that's all that they need in order to pass this policy. And it just does not turn out that way - that's not how it works.

And so in the news this week, again, is news that the Port of Seattle is taking the City of Seattle to court over the recently passed legislation by the Council, which will allow housing to be built in the SODO area, in an industrial area, which the Port and other industrial advocates have vigorously opposed. And there were some steps that were pointed out that appear to have been - potentially look like they were skipped, like environmental reviews and other reviews. That may come back to bite them if that legislation gets overturned. So again, even if you agree with that - the lack of compliance and competence and the crafting of that legislation is what's going to torpedo it. And I wish we would pay more attention to that, because when we just let that slide, because - Hey, we agree with it. So whatever they can do to get it through, without paying attention to the detail necessary to set it up for success and implementation - we're just allowing everyone and everything to fail up. We're spending good money after bad. And here we wind up, three years later - after all of these initiatives and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, with very little to show for it. And so then we wind up with things like performative, toothless resolutions - saying "Defund is bad." And really, if you look on the record, this is probably the fourth time that Council has made a big deal in the past few years of saying "Defund is bad" for the media. And it would be nice if they actually had more substantive things to show, which I think would happen if we all had more of a focus on the competence and compliance aspects of legislating and governing.

So that's me on my soapbox - and getting off - but it's really missing in this conversation. And both nationally and locally, we keep wanting to do this horse race thing - and this is how it impacts this elected, and this is how it impacts the other elected, and their chances for getting elected. But the actual job of governing is an important one. It requires oversight. There are people who are good at it. There are laws and rules that must be followed when you do it. And when you don't do it - when you don't follow those rules, when you don't adhere to the law, when you don't do the basic thing that any organization needs to do to set itself up for success, there are bad consequences for everybody. So, especially if you agree with this Council, if you are a super strong supporter of this Council majority, you should really be a super strong supporter of them making sure that the competence and compliance issues are addressed.

[01:01:05] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. We've got a lot of councilmembers doing bluster and not a lot of the real thing.

[01:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. What has also passed a lot of people's notice is what looks to me to be an unprecedented amount of former Seattle City councilmembers who have stated on the record - in public - how what this current Council is doing is problematic in ways that address the competence and compliance. Oftentimes, you don't see former electeds get super involved in policy debates unless they're directly working on something. But it certainly has been notable to me how many former Seattle City Council electeds - from the past 30 years - have stated online how troubling they view some of the actions of this current Council when it does come to the compliance and competence aspects of the job.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 11th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. You can find Lex on Bluesky at @lex.vaughn.theneedling.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. You can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review and Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review - it is very helpful. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.