Week in Review: December 6, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank

Tacoma's Guaranteed Income Pilot Yields Positive Results from Hacks & Wonks

“City Councilmember Tammy Morales Will Leave the Council In January” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“Op-Ed: Local Leaders Pioneering a New, Undemocratic Seattle Process” by Robert Cruickshank for The Urbanist

“Newest Seattle councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck takes oath” by Nate Sanford from Cascade PBS

“Judge throws out attempted recall of Seattle School Board president” by Sami West from KUOW

“Been on Seattle School Board more than a year? Please resign” by Albert J. Wong for The Seattle Times

“Seattle voters are opposed to plans to close elementaries and open to recalling school board members, NPI poll finds” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Who (so far) is running for King County Executive” by Venice Buhain from Cascade PBS

“ICE can use Boeing Field for deportations, appeals court rules” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times

Washington Community Alliance Data Hub

@BAnderstone on Twitter/X: With King County results finalized, a few pearls. First, in Seattle, Broadmoor edged out the C/ID for the Trumpiest neighborhood. Still, the rest of the list shows class realignment. Much of South Seattle is now more R than Laurelhurst or Madison Park. 1/2 #waelex

“The Party Should Throw Them a Party” by Ned Resnikoff

@greenjacketlady.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky: Story time. Let’s talk about the weird circumstance that led to Green Jacket Lady, and what was going through my head. I’ve never really told this whole story except to friends, but I think it’s a pretty good one, so settle in.

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 Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. 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. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show last week, we chatted with Sukhi Samra from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards, and Dona Ponepinto from United Way Pierce County about GRIT, a groundbreaking guaranteed income pilot program in Tacoma, that has not only demonstrated positive economic impacts, but also challenged long-held misconceptions about poverty and cash assistance. 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 - someone we always enjoy having on - chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Hey!

[00:01:26] Robert Cruickshank: Thanks for having me on again, Crystal.

[00:01:28] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we got some really interesting and unexpected news this week. Tammy Morales is going to be resigning from her Seattle City Council seat as of January 6th. How did you react to this news when you heard it? What did you think of it? And what reasons did she give for resigning?

[00:01:52] Robert Cruickshank: It was heartbreaking. I've known Tammy Morales since her first campaign in 2015. One of my most vivid political memories here in Seattle is knocking doors on Beacon Hill for her in the pouring rain in October of 2015 and soaked to the bone - it was totally worth it, because Tammy was fantastic. That's a race she lost by maybe 400 votes to Bruce Harrell that year. I remember - I'll never forget - meeting with Tammy a couple months after that election and saying, Well, what are you going to do next? She looked me dead in the eye and said - I'm going to run in 2019 and I'm going to win. And sure enough, that's exactly what she did. And she came back again and won in 2023 when that right-wing corporate faction threw everything they had at her. She's done a great job representing District 2, southeast Seattle, a part of the city that we all know is routinely neglected by the power structure in the city.

And she had done a great job, but that job got extremely difficult in 2024, with a new right-wing city council that really put a target on Tammy Morales' back and made it extremely difficult for her to do her job, made it difficult for her staff to do her job representing the needs of her constituents. And in her resignation letter, she made it really clear that the bullying and harassment from her colleagues on the Council had gotten to a point where she couldn't effectively do her job anymore. I think it's horrible. I think it's a really awful outcome for this city - someone who's a two-time election winner representing one of the most important parts of our city that has often been shut out of power. She has done great work and for her to feel like she can't continue in office, I think, is a wake-up call for this entire city that something is very, very wrong on the second floor of City Hall where the City Council offices are. This should be a sign to everybody that we need substantial change in City Hall, on the City Council urgently.

[00:03:45] Crystal Fincher: We absolutely do. And, you know, this wasn't covered super widely for a long time - certainly, listeners to Hacks & Wonks are no strangers to the inappropriate behavior and conduct that we saw from the Council majority towards Tammy Morales. This was not about ideology. Sometimes I saw some people who just looked at the headline and was just like - Is it because she's in the minority? It was not that. It really was about misconduct, bullying, inappropriate behavior that ultimately disenfranchised the voters of District 2 by shutting Tammy Morales out of conversations, by shutting her staff out, by refusing to work with her, by their behavior towards them and really isolating them. The really disrespectful dressing downs that we saw - and other useful context here is that the majority of the Council is new. Tammy is one of the most experienced people in just how does legislation work, just in the ABCs and the 123s of government and legislation, how the City and the Council functions. And attempts to help were spurned. And then seeing the consequences of that being spurned - with so many missteps that made it to the public, and attempts to pursue their agenda that they then had to go back on because they didn't understand what they were doing, or they found out that what they were doing was very, very unpopular in ways that Tammy Morales was attempting to work with them on. It was just really ensuring that District 2 did not have any meaningful representation, and were not going to get anything.

And it's just so frustrating that this is what we're seeing. Some of those things happen nationally and what's so concerning and worrying about what we're seeing on the national and federal level about seeing very qualified people being pushed out of government - which has happened under this Council majority intentionally - seeing loyalists and new people who their number one requirement is, Okay, you're aligned with my agenda, you're loyal to me. Doing government in that sort of way is not healthy. No matter what your ideology is, that is just not a recipe for success. How many times we're seeing that new initiatives are being announced, legislation is being proposed, and they haven't even talked to the departments involved in implementing that - who then are warning about unforeseen consequences. Or, okay, we're thinking about doing this with legislation. We need staff whose job it is to understand what the legislation is, recap it, define it, provide financial projections and the types of outcomes you could expect to see. And those experts coming back and saying - There are many problems with this. We have lots of reservations. We would not recommend this, or we would amend it in this way. And that feedback that doesn't conform to their preconceived notions being buried, and just ignored, and then proceeding anyway. There are really major competency problems here, and several ethical questions that have popped up.

And so I think it is very important, regardless of the ideological positioning and issues, for people to look at the conduct and behavior of this Council and demand better. Even if it's going to be in pursuit of what they said they want to do, people may disagree with that. At the very least, the floor should be that it's done in a professional and ethical way, and that we're listening to evidence and guidance. And if you decide to disagree with that, then justify that on the record instead of acting as if that doesn't exist. Those types of things are just really red flags and lead to the types of problems that most people acknowledge and see very plainly on the federal level. Ignoring it here is how it grows that big. And we can do better here. The people deserve better. And I hope this is really the wake-up call needed for people to really push and ensure that they are keeping eyes on this Council and holding them accountable - because they are there to serve the residents of Seattle.

[00:08:13] Robert Cruickshank: Well, and this is something that is happening more and more frequently in local government here in Seattle. I know we'll talk more about the school district later in our podcast today, but we saw at the very beginning of this year, Vivian Song and Lisa Rivera essentially bullied off the School Board as well. I wrote an article back in August about this - how local leaders at the City Council under Sara Nelson, the School Board under Liza Rankin are pioneering a new undemocratic Seattle process. And part of that is silencing progressive voices. And I think we need to note that Vivian Song, Lisa Rivera, and now Tammy Morales - three progressive women of color - pushed out. And pushed out in part by a more right-leaning group who do not want public scrutiny for the austerity agenda that they're pushing. I think you can't divorce it from that either. It is very ideological, but it's also targeted towards people who already have a hard time getting heard in government anyway. A progressive woman of color is someone who has had to fight hard to be heard by the political establishment, even in Seattle, for many years. So this is, I think, extremely alarming. I think it is connected to the wider political agenda that is being imposed, certainly at City Hall. And I think that the public doesn't agree with either the pushing out of Tammy Morales or the agenda that that Council majority is espousing. And I think we will see hopefully next year in 2025 - with a mayoral election, Sara Nelson's seat is up, Alexis Mercedes Rinck's seat is up, and now Tammy Morales' seat will be up on that ballot too - going to see, will the public stand for this? Or is the public going to step in and say - We need different leadership in the City, we need different policies at the City? And we need a city government that will govern in the right ways for Seattle, including the values, the policies, and the conduct that they have for each other.

[00:10:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And the last thing I'll mention on this is, to your point, this is certainly a broader phenomenon than just the Seattle City Council - certainly the Seattle School Board. We've seen troubling things in the City of Burien - again, issues of competency and conduct. And oftentimes we do see issues of competency and conduct align with poor ideology that is not based in evidence or runs counter to evidence. And I also have to mention the State Legislature. And we heard words from Kirsten Harris-Talley, former representative of the 37th Legislative District - same kinds of underlying dynamics there that certainly predominantly are being wielded against progressive people, and most specifically, progressive women of color, mostly. There are exceptions - certainly Hugo Garcia appears to be a target of this down in Burien and others who have been forced from government. But this is a problem that we have to confront at all levels. And it is not good enough to just say - Well, there are two teams, the D's and the R's. And I'm a D. And if the person has a D by their name, then, you know, hey, it's all good. We can do better. We should do better. And when we don't, especially when it's with people on "our team" or the party you feel most aligned with - that just sets the table for worse to come and permission to when seats flip in one way or another eventually, that then that just gets wielded for even worse, which we're seeing on the national level. So we have to confront this. We have to deal with this and we have to demand better. If we don't do this now, we may not get a chance to fix it again before damage occurs that cannot be repaired more than has already.

Now, I do want to talk about exciting news for a number of people - certainly newsworthy - that the newest member of the Seattle City Council was officially sworn in. Alexis Mercedes Rinck defeated Tanya Wu, who was appointed to that seat, and is now the newest member of the Seattle City Council. She will be standing, as you said, for election next year in 2025, along with others. What do you think, especially following the upcoming departure of Tammy Morales - what do things look like moving forward for Alexis Mercedes Rinck and how can she best be set up for success?

[00:12:49] Robert Cruickshank: I think Alexis Mercedes Rinck has the advantage of having seen the City Council in operation for a year. I think Tammy Morales had experience, had worked very collegially with the Council she'd been on the first four years, and I think was clearly taken aback and shocked by the treatment she experienced in 2024. Alexis Mercedes Rinck now knows to expect that - does not validate it, make it okay, but she now can be prepared. And she can come up with strategies to deal with that, including working with the public to push back against that. And I think we're going to need to mobilize the public to go to our city councilmembers and tell them - This is completely unacceptable. I'm planning to contact Cathy Moore, who represents me in the 5th district and say - I don't want to see this ever happen again and will be watching you very closely to make sure it doesn't. Alexis is also up for re-election herself next year on the ballot - that's helpful in a way because what it means is she's going to have to go out there and build that coalition and maintain that coalition that carried her to victory. There are going to be a lot of organizations that were invested in her success here in 2024 and will be invested in her success again in 2025. And I think it helps.

You and I worked for Mike McGinn 10+ years ago when he was mayor, and he got a lot of stuff thrown at him unfairly too by members of the City Council and the media. And one thing that became very clear to us was the importance of having external validators. We saw this also with Mike O'Brien, who for a long time on that City Council, until the 2015 election, was the 1 in the 8-1 votes - the one lone progressive on the City Council standing up for what was right - and dealt with a lot of flak for it, although certainly nothing like what Tammy Morales has experienced. So what you learned again is the importance of having real strong community allies - Tammy had that, to be clear. But knowing now the part of being an ally to a progressive elected official means having their back when this awful harassment happens.

[00:14:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. This may sound corny and hokey - both of us have worked a lot with elected officials in various capacities. And it's a given you're going to hear about negative stuff. You should - they serve the public, people should let their voice be heard. That's fine and to be expected - well, it should be fine and to be expected, I know certain members of the Seattle Council majority have a different opinion about that right now. But that is part of the job and people know that when they're signing up. But when you are pushing for what you feel is right and you've heard in spaces before that it does reflect the community, it does reflect the conversations that you're having on doors that you're knocking on and people that you're talking to - that's a really lonely position to be in, it's a really quiet position to be in. And you often don't hear from people doing that. And it's a hard thing to stay engaged. I know it is - I recognize that part of my job involves following all this kind of stuff. Would I do that to this degree if I didn't have the job? Probably not. It's challenging. But, to do your best that when those flags are raised to say - Hey, we're making a big push here, we're really trying to get this legislation across the line or really have to fight against efforts to repeal something or to pass a bad bill - that in some way, shape, or form that you show up and make your voice heard, whether it's a phone call or an email or attending a meeting. Really communicating directly with your elected officials makes so much more of a difference than I think people assume. I think people think about sometimes the federal and national stuff - and I'm just one voice in tens of thousands or millions or whatever that is. On the city level, sometimes you're 1 voice in 5. On a bad day, you're 1 voice in 50. And every single message is read, every single voicemail is listened to. And if they agree or not, that's their barometer for how visible an issue is going to be, how controversial an issue is going to be, whether they feel safe taking that vote or that stance or they don't, whether they feel like - Okay, I am backed up by people here. Because they're going to be finalizing this with colleagues that have different views with them, and they do need to know that they have support. And their colleagues need to see that they also have support. I think one of the things with this current Council majority is - so many areas where they went wrong initially and it resulted in them trying to do something and then running into a brick wall, was because they didn't listen to those signals. Most good public officials do understand that if they're hearing from something, that is a concern from someone in their community and that they at least need to account for it - they at least need to have an answer for it, to contend with it. And so make your voice heard in any way you can, be engaged - showing up for meetings is a big deal - again, heavy lift for a ton of people, completely understand that. And one of the ways the deck is stacked against regular working people and families who have all these obligations and don't have a ton of free time and availability to do these things. But that is still really, really impactful and consequential. So I would just urge people to, as we move forward, especially in this next year, it's one of the most important ways you can engage to create change.

[00:18:03] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's absolutely right. And there are, like we've said, elections coming up, there are opportunities to speak up that are coming up at the city. Certainly the Comprehensive Plan, I think, is going to be a big deal in 2025. This is still a democracy. We'll see what happens to that democracy at the federal level. We still have it at the state and local level, but the democracy only sustains itself as long as we fight for it and protect it. I think we're starting to see locally here in Seattle is it's coming under stress as well, and we need to step up.

[00:18:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, I want to talk this week about another major development in Seattle. And that was the effort for the Seattle Public Schools Director recall effort essentially being shut down. What was this recall about? Who was it targeting? And what transpired?

[00:18:51] Robert Cruickshank: Sure. So let me say at the outset, I did some media advising to this recall effort, but it was really driven by the five petitioners and their lawyer who filed a petition to recall Board President Liza Rankin. And it really started in September when the school board proposed closing 20 schools, including all the option schools and alternative schools in the city. And a number of people said - This is terrible, we need to recall the school board. And so parents came together and thought - Well, can we actually do that? And in California, for example, where recalls happen all the time - you can recall an elected official for any reason or no reason. As long as you get enough signatures, it goes on the ballot. Washington is different. In Washington state, you actually have to file a list of charges, and you have to have a judge sign-off on those charges before you go to the ballot. So there is a legal test you have to meet, but there's still like a political smell test you have to pass. Voters have to believe that this is reasonable. Now, there are four school board members who are still in their first year on the board. Can you convince the public to recall them? Probably not. That leaves three. Brandon Hersey and Michelle Sarju are not running for reelection next year, they're on their way out. Can you really ask the voters to recall board members who are in their last year and ready to leave? I don't think the public's going to appreciate that. So you're left with Liza Rankin, who was elected last year as the board president and the driving force, a strong supporter of closing schools.

So politically - sure, you can make a case. You also have to make a legal case. And what happened was people got together and looked - Is there a legal case we can make? And the standard in Washington state is you have to demonstrate that the target of a recall committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or violated their oath of office. You have to drop a list of charges that you file, and a judge reviews it. So what you essentially have to do is prove that the target of a recall basically committed a crime in office. You have to prove this without any investigative resources at all - you're just going purely on what is in the public realm. And that's hard. There are a lot of recalls that are filed that are quite legitimate - the person in office has done terrible things, but are thrown out by a judge because they just don't meet that standard. One that stands out to me is in 2020, when there was an effort to recall Mayor Jenny Durkan for the way she brutally suppressed a lot of the protests in the summer of 2020. I thought that was a pretty slam-dunk case of a recall, but judges did not agree. And then at the same time, people filed what I thought was a frivolous recall against Kshama Sawant. The state Supreme Court did let that go on the ballot, and the reason they gave is that Sawant used her key card to unlock the doors at City Hall to let protesters in during lockdown in the summer of 2020. And that was the justification to put the Sawant recall on the ballot. So it's the weird thing, but anytime you deal with the legal system, that's how it goes.

So I was at the hearing on Monday when the judge reviewed this. And Liza Rankin's lawyers opened by saying - This is just harassment of an elected official. And the judge immediately stepped in and said - Absolutely not. This is entirely legitimate. This is not frivolous. Petitioners have a constitutional right to file this. Then the lawyer said - Well, they're just singling out one director. You can't single out one director for something the whole board has done. The judge shut that down too and said - This isn't a case of where you hold everyone or no one accountable. Petitioners have the right to hold any elected official accountable. The judge went on and in a course of a 90-minute hearing, ultimately decided that that high legal bar was not met. But did say that the petitioners had brought serious concerns. And polling bears that out. We did polling through a new PAC that we founded called Washington Families for Public Education, working with Change Research at the Northwest Progressive Institute, that found 55% of voters are dissatisfied with the direction of Seattle Public Schools, 51% disapprove of the performance of the school board, 50% would vote for new school board members, 54% oppose school closures, and 41% would vote for a recall. So the public is clearly there and wants change, but that high legal bar isn't met. Now, you might think that coming out of a recall like this, where the public is clearly fired up for your removal, that Liza Rankin might have recognized the need to make some pivots and address public concerns. But no. And in her comments to the media and to community members this week since the hearing, has doubled down and made it very clear she still wants to close 20 schools, she still wants to close the option schools and alternative schools and dual language programs. Nothing has changed for her. She's going to keep rolling on. But there are four school board seats up for reelection in 2025 - that is control of the entire school board. And so I think what you're going to see in 2025 is not only a important election about the future of City Hall, but a crucially important election that will decide the future of our public schools.

[00:23:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, extremely consequential school board elections. And I would just say - wherever folks are listening, certainly we have a lot of listeners in Seattle, but also in a number of other cities - school board elections in every district are very, very important this year. Those are often races that do not get much attention. Candidates often don't have much money to get communications out, so they kind of fall by the wayside often. This is not the year to tune out of school board elections, no matter where you are. Also, this is the year to make sure your state legislators understand how incredible incredibly important it is and urgent it is to provide the needed funding for schools for your district to be able to operate, get out of the deficit it is likely facing because so many school districts in the state are facing deficits because of the state funding situation. This is going to be a really important year - there's a lot going on. State legislators are going to have to multitask like they haven't before, likely. We don't know what curveballs are coming from the federal level with funding, but we know we have a full plate already with the various issues in the state that need to be addressed. They can do it. Sometimes it's like - Well, we only have a certain amount of time during session. If they don't get to it, they're going to have to call a special session, or just get to it here. This is the time to plan and ensure that they are making this a priority. Because these issues from Seattle to every other corner in the state, with school boards and school districts, are really important and decisions are going to be made this coming year that are going to impact the way schools and neighborhoods look and cities become over the next decade and beyond.

[00:25:38] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's spot on. And just to add, Moms for Liberty is very much out there. They are active - not just in Washington State, they're active in King County. They actively recruit school board candidates in King County school districts. Certainly that's the case in Snohomish and Pierce Counties as well. They don't have a great track record of winning, but every once in a while - you just need a couple that they can sneak through. And so I think there's going to be an effort not only to address the problems at Seattle Public Schools next year, but a organized effort to try to elect people to school boards around the region who will stand up for public education, stand up for Washington's values against Moms for Liberty types.

[00:26:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, I also want to talk about a big position up for election this coming year. King County Executive Dow Constantine has announced that he will not be running for re-election. And so far, King County Councilmembers Girmay Zahilay, Claudia Balducci, and King County Assessor John Wilson have entered the race. How do you see this race shaping up? And what do each of these people bring to this race?

[00:26:49] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's going to be a very fascinating race. This is the first time since 2009 when the King County Executive has been open. And even before that, Ron Sims held that office since the mid-1990s. So this will be only the second time in nearly 30 years that the King County Executive has been up. We have three candidates so far. Others are likely to jump in. I hear rumors essentially that Ann Davison, Seattle's City Attorney, might be thinking about it. I think you can count on someone from the right jumping in for sure. But the three candidates you have so far are quite interesting. Girmay is the Seattle progressive candidate, who has a strong community base in central and southeast Seattle, who has been there since 2019 and has amassed a pretty strong record on the County Council. So has Claudia Balducci, who comes from Bellevue, used to be on the Bellevue City Council, and has been there since the mid-2010s. Claudia's strength - the main thing she's running on right now - is housing and transit. That's not to say Girmay is not interested or strong on those issues. He is. I think it's going to be a very interesting battle by those two to scoop up the votes of your regular Democratic voter in King County, in Seattle, and on the Eastside. And in south King County, where I think a lot of votes are up for grabs. John Wilson, County Assessor, is out there - maybe try to be more of a centrist Democrat. He's going to have his work cut out for him, especially if there is a candidate on the right who wants to run as a Trumpist, crackdown on crime and visible homelessness sort of person.

But it is a top-two election. And so you're going to have two people go on to that runoff in November 2025. And it's going to be very interesting to see which two those are. There's a good chance that whoever runs from the right is one of those two - they'll have a fairly clear lane all to themselves. It'll be quite the contest, I think, between Claudia and Girmay to get the votes to come in second place - maybe even first, it's possible. But they're going to have to appeal not only to the Seattle progressive voter, they're going to have to appeal to the Seattle centrist voter, they're going to have to appeal to the Eastside voter, your regular Democrat in Federal Way or SeaTac or Burien. And let's not forget southeast King County - Covington, Black Diamond, Auburn. Those cities have a lot of people too, and that could be a place where certainly a primary election can be swung. And there are a lot of Democrats now living out there. We tend to think of those as deep red, but that's not really the case anymore. As Seattle itself and as the central parts of King County have gotten more expensive, a lot of people have been priced out and pushed out. So those areas out in eastern and southeastern King County have a lot of votes that are up for grabs, and so I think you're going to see a lot of these candidates try to jockey for that position. It will be interesting to me to see what they wind up running on. What are the issues that actually rise to the fore and how candidates address those? Girmay, for example, did vote earlier this year to keep the Youth Jail open. Interviewed by The Stranger about this, I thought Girmay gave a very accurate statement as to that, pointing out that his constituents want that open. They want that option. That is true. But there are still also people who want genuine reform and are uncomfortable with having a youth jail. So how are the candidates going to address that? So I think we're going to see a very interesting and I think positive - hopefully, at least, among the Democratic candidates - positive campaign about issues, and how it is that we're going to move King County forward with Dow Constantine stepping aside.

[00:30:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's going to be really interesting to see how they do approach the issues, how they define themselves. And particularly for the two who are currently on the council, how they contend with the votes they've taken and the bases that they have. I think between Claudia Balducci and Girmay Zahilay, there's a significant overlap between the voters they are looking at. I certainly absolutely agree that John Wilson is likely to occupy a lane that's more moderate than either one of those, but it'll be really interesting to see who they define as their base and how they see that, how they prioritize the issues that are most pressing, how they talk about taxation and revenue, how they talk about public and community safety, what their vision is for really delivering safety to everyone, how they talk about public health and the issues involved with that throughout the county and region. How they just approach issues of the budget, overall, which is a major issue in King County. And certainly there's been calls for more transparency in that budgeting process and the way that that budget is put together. I'm eager to see how this unfolds. I think they certainly have a lot to offer and are running because there is a path to victory for them - I can certainly see that, at least for Claudia and Girmay. I'm curious to see if Ann Davison does get in the race. And what other people on the right get in the race. I know we saw Reagan Dunn - before, he certainly had other aspirations for different offices, higher offices before. So is he a name that's going to get in there this time? Curious to see. And to see what kind of Republican they're going to run as - big question with that in King County. Is it going to be the more Dunn-esque type Republicans that we've seen? Or is it going to be closer to who the base really is, even in King County now, which is really a MAGA-aligned base and agenda, which is going to sound very different than what we've seen and heard before on the King County Council. So I'm just really curious to see how this unfolds and what they view as their charge. And how they plan to wield the power of the executive, especially in light of what we see on a federal level - just had a decision come down that King County Airfield can be used - a judge overturned King County's policy of not using King County Airport for deportation flights. That's now going to happen. So I think there's going to be a greater appetite to hear how they plan to and how they foresee wielding their executive powers as they move forward.

[00:32:50] Robert Cruickshank: It's also worth noting that King County Executive has historically been a launching pad towards being governor of Washington state. But hasn't happened for Ron Sims or Dow Constantine. Both attempted it. Ron ran in the 2004 primary, lost to Christine Gregoire. Dow was a candidate for a hot minute in 2020 until Inslee said he was running again and became clear that Ferguson was lined up for 2024. But whoever winds up becoming King County Executive, King County is still by far the largest county in terms of population in Washington state. And if you're a county executive here, you're automatically in the discussion to be the next governor whenever Bob Ferguson decides he's done.

[00:33:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I want to move on and talk about election results. Now, a lot of people think - The election was on like November 5th. We are a full month after that. Why are we talking about results? Well, we're talking about results because we just got final result data. Takes a while to count all of the votes - we have a vote by mail state and that takes a while. Elections get certified in late November. And then we just got precinct data this week - the final results. So previous maps that you saw, previous data that you saw - a lot of that is just from the first night of results. And as we know, in Washington state and definitely in King County, those results can shift quite a bit. And so what it looks like happened on the first night. may look very different by the time all the votes are counted, which is why if you know me, you have heard me say - Let's wait to make all of our conclusions until we have all of the data in. Now that we do, there are a number of interesting insights. Some of them that contradict what we thought we saw or what initial incomplete results showed. Now that we have final results, things are different. What are the most notable things to you about this election? And what are some of those things that you saw that maybe turned out to be different than we initially thought?

[00:34:58] Robert Cruickshank: The first one is a lot of us in Washington state took some comfort in the fact that at least right after the election, Washington was the only state in the country that did not shift towards Trump. Well, it turns out we kind of did. We had the smallest shift towards Trump - much less than a percentage point - a tiny, almost imperceptible shift, but there was one. So we can no longer say we went in the left direction. We did not. So what we saw when we also look at the results here in Seattle by precinct - that there was a shift towards Trump, not just in Broadmoor and the places that are wealthy and have a view of the water, but also to some degree in places like Chinatown International District and in southeast Seattle. While Broadmoor is still the Trumpiest precinct in the city, those other places I mentioned are not that far behind. And I think what this means is that for Democrats and progressives, there's work to be done. Some of that shift was younger voters choosing the couch over the ballot box - dissatisfied with Biden, dissatisfied with Harris for whatever reason, and we should look at what those reasons were - not really feeling compelled to cast a ballot in this election. But some of that was votes for Trump. And you have to take that seriously. You've seen across the country - most notably in 2020, in the Rio Grande Valley, heavily Latino part of Texas, but now you saw it in other parts of the country. There was a shift in some places that are heavily populated by people of color towards Trump. You also saw, of course, a lot of white people moving towards Trump - so let's be super clear about that.

What this shows to Democrats and progressives - I think there was a lazy assumption in the 2010s and after the 2020 election that voters of color were just going to vote for Democrats and you didn't really need to do much work. And that was just wrong. It's flatly wrong and it's offensive. You still have to reach out to voters. You have to talk to them, learn what their needs are, learn what they're asking for, and inspire them to show up. That is true of anyone. That is true here in Seattle. Now, what you see when you look at these same precincts and districts down-ballot, you're not seeing a shift, certainly in Seattle, towards Republicans, generally speaking. Democratic candidates still did pretty well. Democrats picked up a seat in the State House. They picked up a seat in the State Senate. So you're not seeing a widespread rejection of the Democratic Party, either in Seattle, King County, or statewide. You are not seeing this state start to Trumpify. But you can't rule out that possibility. You need to take, I think, very clearly the lessons of this election that Kamala Harris, for all her many strengths - I was a huge Kamala Harris fan and have been since I first met her in 2008 in California. I was super excited for this election. A lot of other people weren't. And we need to really go out and do that deep canvassing and research and ask why. And be curious about it. And not assume we know the answer and not judge what the answer is, but just go to folks and ask, especially folks in those precincts in Seattle that swung to Trump - whether they swung to Trump because people actively chose him or because people chose the couch.

[00:38:10] Crystal Fincher: That choosing the couch issue is so huge. And certainly for people I worked with during - certainly the general election portion, but throughout the entire last cycle - that was a major, major concern that many of us had. Because there has been this assumption that voters are just going to show up because obviously the other guy is worse. That's not how voters make their decisions. It is important to note that typically people who follow politics really, really closely, certainly people who work in politics, think about politics differently personally than a lot of other people. Are working with a lot more information a lot of times, are much more emotionally invested, see more connections between what happens politically, what they're saying, and policy, and how it impacts their everyday lives. But for a lot of different reasons, people's general experiences don't mimic that. And so they're processing information a different way. So if we sit here and say - Well, obviously this and that and that were true, and the other guy's horrible, and didn't you hear this and that and that? All of that information doesn't flow through to the general voter, especially those who are persuadable late in the cycle in the same way it does for us. Like it or hate it, that's just true.

And so the notion - that just because the other guy is worse, I got this in the bank - just does not fly. And it didn't in this instance. And that's what taking voters for granted is. That's what not showing up and really meaningfully engaging is. And I would add that I think we also have to deeply reexamine the model that has us absent from communities and engagement for three and a half years. And then we swoop in to ensure that they vote with a couple trite messages attached to it. These days, in this media and information environment, that's not going to cut it. I think before, and certainly this is not at all discounting the importance of field, it's kind of doubling down on the importance of authentic engagement as field, but the way people receive information now is different than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. And so where someone could knock on your door and - Hey, it's someone oftentimes from a community you can trust and understand things. And, oh, this is a real person - I attach credibility to this person in a way that I don't attach credibility to people who I see on TV or the news. That's much more impersonal than this person talking to me in person. That dynamic is different now. And people do place a lot more trust than they used to in people they follow on TikTok, people they follow on YouTube and online. And that is functioning as the knock on the door and the let me talk to you as a trusted validator about this issue. And so if you are coming to the door, you better be prepared to do that more than once, to really listen, to have it reflected that you're listening, and to have an authentic response. Or if you come back four years later, to have a way that you've responded to what you heard before. And I think those ingredients are often missing there. I think the way the media environment has shifted has changed that. But that's one takeaway that I think - we need to shift towards more community-based, authentic, continual engagement with communities on the ground.

I did speak with the folks over at Washington Community Alliance Data Hub and their senior research analyst, Dr. Tim O'Neal, who gave this little write-up, so I'll just quote him. "Notably, aside from Biden's 2020 vote share at 58%, Harris's 2024 vote share at 57.7% was the highest for a Democratic nominee for president since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 at 62%, which was also the last time Democratic candidates swept all statewide offices in Washington state. Conversely, although Trump's 2024 vote share was slightly higher than his 2016 and 2020 vote shares, he received a smaller share of the overall vote than most Republican nominees over the same time span. Since 2016, Spokane, Whitman, Walla Walla, Benton, and every county in western Washington except Cowlitz have moved to the left, with the largest swings in northwest Washington - the Island, Jefferson, and Clallam counties. Although the margin in 2024 was slightly closer than in 2020, both nominees received fewer votes than in 2020. Trump received 58,144 fewer votes than he received in 2020, while Harris received 128,060 fewer votes than Joe Biden. Throughout Washington state, there was a significant negative correlation between the change in turnout from 2020 to 2024 and the shift in votes away from Harris, but not the shift in votes towards Trump. This effect was seen at the congressional, legislative, and county level - and was more tightly correlated with drop-off of young voters and voters of color than with the overall electorate. Most areas of the state that saw the greatest shift towards Trump in 2024, including the Yakima Valley, Seattle's International District in Chinatown in south Seattle, which we just discussed earlier, also saw the greatest drop in turnout of young voters and voters of color, suggesting that this improvement in those areas was more likely attributable to voter apathy than voter realignment."

Certainly underscores a lot of what we just talked about.

[00:44:11] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think this should not be comfort for Democrats in Seattle or Washington state. These should be warning signs that - sure, Democrats swept statewide offices. Great. Sure, they added a little bit to their legislative majorities. Great. But voter apathy is becoming a problem. You saw that even though the Biden administration had some real significant accomplishments in its four years, it was nowhere near enough to overcome that voter apathy. And in some cases, certainly fueled it, especially when you look at Biden's foreign policy. So Democrats here in Washington say you need to be really careful about this. They need to understand what their voters want, pay attention to those voters who dropped off, and make sure that they're delivering and doing that year-round organizing work that you mentioned. A colleague of mine, Ned Resnikoff, wrote a great article right after the election called "The Party Should Throw a Party," which is basically calling for this, saying that political parties, especially Democrats, need to show up regularly, having community events in communities you're trying to organize. I'd go a step further and say you should also be partnering with the organizations that know those communities best rather than trying to supplant. How ever you do it, Democrats need to show up and show up often rather than just come around at election time asking for a vote.

[00:45:28] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. That is foundationally critical moving forward, I believe, and certainly have taken that to heart in the work that I do, which is aligned with that. But the era of the late cycle canvass, people parachuting in to different areas that are targeted, that don't even live there, that have that going on - that is not providing and will no longer provide the returns necessary to win elections on the statewide and national scale if we don't shore this up. And I will mention the concerns about apathy and not feeling included, listened to, like there's genuine power sharing and a feeling of obligation to deliver for - I can certainly speak on that about communities of color. That was not a new thing this cycle. That was a takeaway after 2016 and 2020. And I think now we're in the find out phase of that, where lots of warnings before and like - Hey, pay attention to this. And certainly some people saw that, there was certainly attention to that in the state. But we're also working with federal forces and the party as a whole from the national level on down does have to reckon with the need to continuously and authentically engage with all facets of their constituencies. And certainly we can list the top constituencies of the Democratic Party really easily. And if you allow those to erode, we get results on the national stage that are what happened. And so fortunately, that impact has not been as pronounced, that whole dynamic has not been as pronounced on the local level. But here we have continued warning signs. So the party here - locally, the county parties, legislative parties, state party - all have their work cut out for them in addressing this moving forward.

[00:47:23] Robert Cruickshank: Yep, I think that's right. And hopefully we will see leadership in this state - not just the party leadership, I think the Washington State Party, Democratic Party leadership gets it - Shasti Conrad, the people around her do. But it's the governor, the legislative leadership, I think, that really need to step up here rather than just cruise along as usual.

[00:47:44] Crystal Fincher: That is exactly correct. I will also add this one other addition from Tim O'Neal at Washington Community Alliance Data Hub. The statewide initiatives 2109, 2117, and 2124 way overperformed Kamala Harris in rural Washington, showing that people tend to support progressive taxation, even if they don't support Democratic candidates. This is not a dynamic unique to Washington state. We've seen this with statewide initiatives and deep red states that have passed minimum wage, passing Obamacare, passing paid family leave, certainly abortion protections. But progressive taxation, making the tax system more fair - we are seeing record income inequality. People can see plainly the greed at play in our systems. It was notable to me that we saw multiple congressional candidates here in Washington, including Kim Schrier and others in competitive districts, running on preventing the Albertsons-Kroger merger because of how bad it would be for Washington residents and the impact that it could have in raising grocery prices. These types of things - taking on directly greed, right-sizing our tax system, and supporting progressive taxation - you don't get many instances where you have an entire state resoundingly say, Oh, no, no, no, we want this tax. We value this tax. This is completely aligned with our interests - way more than so many other things we talk about and assume are popular. And speaking of things we want the Democratic elected leadership in our state to hear, this is certainly one of those. This is basically a can't lose issue in Washington state. Few things poll this highly. We rarely see statewide initiatives that get this level of support. And so I would just say - my goodness, that should be at the top of every advocacy reminder. That should be part of everyone's talking. That should be part of every candidate questionnaire. This revenue is sorely needed in every single way. We talked about needing to fund our schools, talk about immigrant needs. We talked about so many things from childcare to housing affordability are directly impacted by this. And so, that was one of the bright spots in the country - there was a call yesterday with colleagues on a project from across the country. And my goodness, this is one of the top lines that like, look at this. This is possible. Change is afoot in ways that a lot of people who've been around for a long time - 10, 20 years - just kind of assumed it never would be. But we are here now and we need to work with it.

[00:50:33] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. You mentioned the statewide initiatives. Initiative 2109, which would have repealed the capital gains tax, was rejected by 64% of voters in Washington state, including voters in almost every county in eastern Washington. This was a broadly popular tax, the capital gains tax, which targets wealthy individuals. The State Legislature has a budget deficit to fill, they have schools that need funding. One thing that would immediately rise to the top of my list - why don't you expand that capital gains tax? You don't have to tax anyone additionally, but you can raise the rate from 7% to 9%, for example, and get more out of the people you're already taxing. The public clearly wants that. It is popular everywhere in Washington state. And the Democratic majority should listen to that and do that rather than listen to wealthy donors and their lobbyists who may not want them to go down that route.

[00:51:25] Crystal Fincher: We're tight on time and about to wrap up. But my goodness, if you know me, and probably on this program several times before - I could talk about it for a whole show. But, the party does have to decide whether it truly represents its donors or the people on the ground who they serve. That's going to have to be a hard, firm decision made. And this is one of those issues that will clearly determine the choice that people make on this.

Last thing I want to mention - do you remember Green Jacket Lady, Robert? How did she come to be known?

[00:51:57] Robert Cruickshank: Sure do. In 2023, Fox News went to Seattle Center to do person-on-the-street interviews to ask people - How awful is it in Seattle? Isn't it unsafe with all this visible homelessness and public drug use? And they stuck a microphone in front of a woman wearing a green jacket at Seattle Center on her way to the ballet. And she just laughed and scoffed at this. They asked her - Do you feel unsafe in this city? She's like, No. And she just was completely dismissive of these right-wing, scaremongering, fear-mongering questions she was being asked. And Fox News included this in the clip and she went immediately viral, known as Green Jacket Lady. And she prefers to be known as Green Jacket Lady, prefers to be anonymous - I don't actually know what her name is and respect the desire for anonymity. Well, she showed up on Bluesky recently and told that story of what happened that day, and how she heard about it, and the fame that she got. And how gratifying it was that the public responded really well. And she, I think, had her finger on the pulse of this city and is one of us - a Seattleite in a green rainproof jacket was on her way somewhere, the ballet, like any of us might be, rejecting right-wing fear-mongering. And that is a reminder to me - one, she's awesome. And two, most Seattleites agree with her. We don't support this right-wing fear-mongering that has captured our city council, that has captured certainly the federal government. And when she appeared on Bluesky this week and told that story, she's got essentially a hero's welcome from people there, which is a reflection, I think, not of the fact that she herself is brilliant, but the public is really hungry for that affirmation of our city's core values - that are welcoming, that want safety, want people to get treatment, but are opposed to the Andrea Suarez, Ann Davison, Sara Nelson, Donald Trump, Brandi Kruse agenda of really hurting people who are in need. That's not what we are about as a city, and we need to come together and chart a better course.

[00:54:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. And it was just a delightful moment in my week to see - think I got tipped off in a group chat or something - like, Green Jacket Lady's back. What? Saw her up there. But yes, just spoke to what so many of us just think and feel so deeply. It's not that there are no problems, but these trite, reactionary, punitive kind of ideas that are floated. And really just the perverse exploitation by Fox News that was attempted there. They're really just selling their own ads by demeaning a city, demeaning people, and derailing attempts to truly make more people more safe and healthy. It's just really frustrating, and I think she just so perfectly spoke to that and mocked it because it's completely unserious. It's an unserious assertion. It was just wonderful to see that then and to be reminded of that. And also to learn - she made that jacket - which was another wonderful thing. So Green Jacket Lady even made their own green jacket - just delightful, industrious, and iconic.

And with that, we thank you for joining Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, December 6th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Bluesky at @robertcruickshank.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. You can follow me on Bluesky at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar and subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. We may be publishing a little more sparsely than that during December. We'll let you know why in January. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.