Week in Review: October 18, 2024 - with Shauna Sowersby

Washington State Faces Controversial Initiatives on November Ballot from Hacks & Wonks

“WA voters are sticking with party lines and paying attention” by Shauna Sowersby from Cascade PBS

2024 Election: 3 weeks out | Cascade PBS / Elway Poll

“WA voters poised to reject two initiatives, accept other two” by Venice Buhain from Cascade PBS

“Latest poll shows one governor’s race candidate handily in lead” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times

“The Stranger’s Endorsements for the November 5, 2024 General Election” from The Stranger Election Control Board

“2024 General Election Endorsements” from The Urbanist Elections Committee

Washington Statewide Voter Guide 2024 from Cascade PBS

Check your Washington state voter registration

King County Elections - View your voter registration information, track your ballot and read about the contests on your ballot

“Capital gains tax repeal could cost WA public schools billions” by John Stang from Cascade PBS

“Tacoma City Council Authorizes Funds for a Pride-Themed Decorative Crosswalk on Broadway in Downtown Tacoma” from City of Tacoma

“Pierce County to begin paying jurors $100 a day” by Grace Deng from Washington State Standard

“Two WA men were arrested in mental health crises. Only one survived” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times

“Why Yakima County leaders want the coroner to resign” by Daniel Beekman 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 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 to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and linked in the episode notes.

If you missed our Tuesday show this week, I chatted with Aaron Ostrom from the Defend Washington campaign about the four statewide initiatives that are backed by a California hedge fund manager - they're stirring up controversy as Washington voters prepare to cast their ballots this November. The measures, which would repeal several recently passed laws, are being met with strong opposition from groups who argue they would benefit wealthy people and corporations at the expense of working families and crucial public services. 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, today's co-host: excellent state politics reporter for Cascade PBS, Shauna Sowersby.

[00:01:39] Shauna Sowersby: Thanks for having me on, Crystal.

[00:01:41] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back - very, very happy to have you on. Well, wanted to start the conversation this week talking about some new polls that have been released - one significant poll from Cascade PBS and Elway. What does this poll reveal?

[00:01:58] Shauna Sowersby: It reveals a couple of different things. We looked at some of the initiatives and how those are polling with likely voters in Washington state. And as it stands now, it looks like two are poised to fail and two are poised to make it through - if these details from the poll holds up. And then the other one we looked at the governor's race, the presidential race, the race for lands commissioner, and the attorney general race. And not too many surprises there - of course, in Washington, most voters are leaning towards Harris as president, most voters are leaning towards Ferguson for governor. I think the only really interesting one to me was the lands commissioner race, which shows pretty close polling with Dave Upthegrove in the lead on that one with 41% and Jaime Herrera Beutler was at 35. So not too far behind there - and still a lot of undecided voters in that race as well.

[00:03:07] Crystal Fincher: So I want to dig into these poll results a little bit because they're really interesting. As you said, the results for the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump looks how you would expect it to look - Kamala Harris at 57%, Donald Trump with 32%, someone else 3%, undecided 8% - those look generally how you would expect them to look. Interesting, there was a follow-up question here for, if they chose Harris - If you had to choose one or the other, which would you say is important to your vote - putting Harris in the White House or keeping Trump out of the White House? 25% said putting Harris in was more important to their vote. 25% said - eh, it's a wash either way. And 50% said the most important thing for their vote was keeping Trump out. So interesting - that dynamic that we see - someone motivated by voting for something, motivated by voting against something. Trump voters are different. When they were asked - the people who said that they would support Donald Trump - 58% of them said the most important thing was keeping Trump in, 21% said keeping Harris out was most important, and 22% said it was equal. So I thought that was interesting - that's not always a follow-up question asked, and so that was insightful. And Cascade PBS, they asked some interesting follow-up questions in their polls.

The Bob Ferguson-Dave Reichert result - Bob Ferguson at 51%, Reichert at 37%, 11% undecided, 1% someone else. This isn't too far off of the presidential results - in partisan races, that's not shocking at all. What is interesting is that you look at some of these media or political organizations that do ratings of how competitive races are - and weirdly, and again, this year, a number of them wasn't like - Oh, this is going to be a clear Democratic victory. They had these as close in some situations - lean Democrat. But like - Oh, Reichert, you could do this. And I think the Cook Political Report for a while had this seeming closer than it was - kind of recalled the talk with Tiffany Smiley a couple years ago, and like - Oh, that could totally happen. Totally did not happen. So it's just interesting to see. And that Dave Reichert's at 37%, which is less competitive than we've seen Republicans running for governor in the past. And so is that a reflection on how people generally feel about Donald Trump, who certainly is not popular overall? Is that just how they feel about Dave Reichert? And also interesting is the follow-up question that was asked in this poll - Which of these descriptions best fits the race in your opinion? 72% said - Hey, there's a clear choice between these candidates, 6% said there's a hard choice between two good candidates, and 10% said it's a hard choice between two not very good candidates. So it looks like people aren't feeling like in this race they're choosing between the lesser of the evils or this is super tough. 72% feel like there are clear differences between them and most people fall on one side or the other, so it's not tough to figure out where they stand.

As you said, this Commissioner of Public Lands result is pretty interesting, with 41% Dave Upthegrove, 35% Jaime Herrera Beutler, 24% undecided. That's a lot of undecided and not that big of a difference. Undecideds - a portion of them usually wind up not voting, depending on how they split. We're here with three weeks left in this election. And now, I'm sure everybody is noticing - mailers are landing in your mailbox, political ads are all over your television screen and everything that you're streaming. And so we'll see how that communication impacts the race. That communication does absolutely have an impact that can move a race 5 or 10%, if people are relatively unknown. Dave Upthegrove, across the state, isn't very well known yet. Jaime Herrera Beutler has more name ID because she was a former congresswoman. But also voted out by Republicans - and in a majority Democratic state, a Republican also isn't starting off in the best position. So it'll be interesting to see if independent expenditures hop in this race, if there's a lot of outside spending. There was a feeling that - Hey, if Republicans spend on any race, it would probably be this race. They probably feel like they have the best shot at winning a statewide race here. The other ones look definitely out of reach for them. But we haven't seen that come in yet, as some thought it would. And so, is that going to come? Are these poll results going to influence anything? Are we going to see a lot of late spending? To be determined, but people have their eye on that one.

And as you said, the initiative results are very interesting. It looks like two are strong percentages of people really disagree with them and that No vote is really taking the lead. But two are much closer on the other side. And so 2066, concerning regulating energy service, including natural gas and electrification - how would you encapsulate the arguments from people who support this initiative?

[00:08:32] Shauna Sowersby: From the people who support it, I think they feel like - and this is just what I've heard on the ground whenever I'm out there talking to people or when I've gone to some of these rallies - folks, they really just say that it's about choice. They don't want the option for natural gas to be taken away, which wasn't going to happen-

[00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that was never a thing.

[00:08:57] Shauna Sowersby: -under the current law that was enacted, that was never going to happen. But they believe that it was a mechanism put in place to eventually phase out natural gas. So the argument is just - Hey, we want some choice and we want some say in what the state does, whether or not they take that away from us.

[00:09:17] Crystal Fincher: How would you describe the argument against this initiative - what people who support a No vote for Initiative 2066 are saying?

[00:09:29] Shauna Sowersby: I think it's kind of along the same lines as Initiative 2117, which would get rid of the Climate Commitment Act. Like some folks do want to see the state move away from gas, they want to see the state meet its climate goals, and this is just one more rung on the ladder that they have to build up to that - to meet our climate goals here in the state.

[00:09:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that does a good job of summing them up. The thing that I find ironic about this, which you kind of alluded to, the Yes campaign is very much like - Oh, they want to take our gas stoves. They want to prevent us from using natural gas. And it's just these climate crazies who are trying to force their opinions on us. Which, this legislation that this is attempting to repeal was not going to do that. But interestingly, this initiative does actually take choice away from local governments and from other organizations, meaning that they can't offer rebates or incentives to consumers for getting more energy efficient appliances or newer appliances that use cleaner energy. They aren't able to provide discounts for people who switch to cleaner or less expensive energy. They aren't able to plan effectively for that. They are forced to provide natural gas if it's available in the jurisdiction and really cannot transition away from it. So it's so interesting - listening to the rhetoric and then reading the text about what it would actually do - because it seems like the choices that are being limited statutorily are much more severe if this passes than no mandates that exist right now for anything - even though it's being presented that way. So that was interesting. But, the Yes campaign on that is currently in this poll at 51%, the No at 28%, 20% undecided. And so again, as people are just tuning in, as they're just receiving their ballots - and most regular people have not been waiting eagerly for their ballots to arrive and counting down the days until King County mails out the voter pamphlet and the ballot and expecting that - most people, regular normal people, are not super tuned in and election nerds and policy wonks and political hacks. They kind of get clued in when they start seeing a bunch of political ads and when they get their ballots. So they're just now saying - Okay, there are initiatives. What are these initiatives? And so the communication, the ads that you see, the arguments that they hear for and against from different people are going to be really influential in how people understand these.

Initiative 2109 is about the capital gains tax, which funds a lot of stuff in Washington state - we'll talk about an element of that later in the show. But that one is pretty lopsided in the other direction, where 29% would vote Yes to repeal a capital gains tax. 56% say No, they want to keep the capital gains tax. 15% undecided. This is one where that undecided percentage doesn't seem like it's in the range where it can change the result at all. So we will see how this turns out, but that is where it stands today. Initiative 2117 is the Climate Commitment Act, as we talked about. 31% say they would vote Yes to repeal the cap and trade program. 46% say No, they want to keep the Climate Commitment Act and the cap and trade program. 23% are undecided. So that's another significant chunk of undecided people. Certainly it looks like the No campaign, that would maintain and keep the Climate Commitment Act is in the lead - but we'll see what communication does with that and where people land. Initiative 2124, which is long-term care insurance, which most people are likely to need in their lifetimes now. And so this would basically repeal mandatory participation in the program, which is what insurance is - everybody pays in and then when you need it, then you get it out. So 45% say they would vote Yes to make the program optional. 33% would say they are voting No to keep the program as it is. 22% are undecided. So this is another interesting one. What do you hear from people who are supporting and opposing this initiative?

[00:14:08] Shauna Sowersby: For that one, I think - what I've heard from the Yes votes, or the people who are sponsoring this initiative - again, they are trying to say that it's just simply about choice. They're not asking to repeal this program. They just want people to be allowed to say whether or not they want to participate. And on the flip side of that - of course, like you were talking about, it's an insurance program. It doesn't really work if everybody isn't paying into it. So I think that those are the two key arguments I've heard from both sides - from the opponents and from those supporting it.

[00:14:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is something that a lot of people are beginning to face and encounter, whether they're older people who are contending with their own friends themselves needing this care and the financial challenges from it. Because this is not something currently covered by Medicare, it's not covered by insurance. And I think a lot of people think it is covered by some of those insurances - it is not, and it's devastatingly expensive for some people. Certainly, people who are against the repeal of this would say - This is something that is in the interest of the state to have a program for because the majority of residents are living long enough that they're going to need some long-term care at some point in time. And it is so expensive right now that it is draining people's life savings, it's forcing people to become essentially wards of the state - to actually have to give up their possessions so they qualify under income for this to be covered under Medicaid. It's just a big challenge. And then people who are in support of repealing this - I think you're absolutely right - they want it to be optional. And they're saying - This is another deduction from my paycheck. I need that money. Inflation has been a thing. The undecideds here might be deciding how this turns out - it'll be really interesting to see. But all four of those are pretty interesting.

And then, there are the overarching campaigns - because really these four initiatives are sponsored by Brian Heywood, a hedge fund manager, multimillionaire from California, sponsored by Jim Walsh. They say - vote Yes on all of them - they're essentially a slate. And I think their slogan is - Pay Less, Vote Yes - that's what they're saying on all of them. And then the No side is saying - Hey, vote No on all of these initiatives - this is really an attempt to significantly defund our government. When people do see how much money it would actually remove from the state and take away from things like schools and childcare, support certainly does lower for them - polling has showed. And they're saying - Hey, we are actually making progress on the biggest challenges that we have. These are beneficial to a lot of people. This is just an attempt by Republicans who can't, who haven't been able to elect enough people in the Legislature to pass laws. They're just using these initiatives to repeal the laws of Democrats and they're trying to legislate through initiative. So those arguments are out there - we'll hear more of them with the communication.

And I appreciate Cascade PBS doing this polling, especially some of the questions that they ask, which dive a little bit deeper into the issues than we see on some of the other polls. So that's a useful thing, and I always look forward to diving into these. We'll link these in the resources and the show notes if you want to dive into the poll and the crosstabs for yourself. Also kind of attached to that, Seattle Times came out with some poll results - they haven't released the full poll yet. But it seems to be consistent with what the Cascade PBS poll says for the governor's race. And I believe that one has, out of likely voters in Washington, 34% are supporting Reichert, 50% support for Bob Ferguson, with 16% said they were undecided. So pretty similar to what you were looking at and in the ballpark.

Now, we're talking about all of this as ballots are arriving in mailboxes today. They were mailed, certainly, in King County yesterday. So you will see them arriving today and tomorrow. Actually, while we were recording this, I got a text alert from King County Elections that ballots have been mailed. And so as ballots are arriving - one, make sure you get your ballot and you fill it out as soon as possible.

[00:18:45] Shauna Sowersby: I've got mine here. We got ours down in Thurston County over the weekend. So, yeah, we were way ahead.

[00:18:54] Crystal Fincher: Thurston County mailed before the other ones. So have you already voted yet, or have you not voted yet?

[00:19:01] Shauna Sowersby: I haven't voted yet. I still have my ballot here in front of me. But I'm looking it over, being careful about my choices.

[00:19:09] Crystal Fincher: That's a good thing. That is a useful thing. I hope most people-

[00:19:12] Shauna Sowersby: Don't want to be too hasty.

[00:19:13] Crystal Fincher: Yes. Look it over and really consider what they're doing. The Stranger has their endorsements. The Urbanist has endorsements out. Various papers and entities have their endorsements. So we will link some of those.

[00:19:27] Shauna Sowersby: We also have a voter guide.

[00:19:29] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. So there's a lot of deliberation that'll be happening. I will just encourage people - one, double check that you're registered. If you're in King County, sign up for those ballot alerts - we'll put a link to that in the show notes. It's just useful because they'll let you know when your ballot is mailed. When you return it via mail or dropbox, they'll confirm that they received it. Then they'll confirm again and send you another text, so they'll let you know that - Hey, your signature has been verified, it's going to be counted, totally great. And so, you can really opt-in to getting alerts about where your ballot is in the entire process, which is important because here in Washington, we have an all vote-by-mail system. So just a reminder, it is important to not just fill out things cleanly on the ballot. Vote the entire ballot - there are a lot of races and they're - all of them matter. So don't just start at the top and not follow through to the very end - flip over the ballot, go to an additional section, just make sure you get the whole thing. And make sure you sign the envelope on the outside - that is how they verify your signature, they do that first. If your signature doesn't match what they have on file, then it's not going to be counted. You do have the opportunity to fix that, but you need to be paying attention to make sure that if something does go awry with that signature verification or something, that you do correct that so your vote is counted.

So they're here. Now, I'm a political consultant - I'm working on different races, efforts in support of races - we're reminding people to fill out the full ballots for a reason because sometimes that doesn't happen all the way down. And also for ballot rejections, a signature mismatch is the number one reason ballots are rejected. It's happened to me before. It's happened to people in my family before.

[00:21:11] Shauna Sowersby: It's happened to me too.

[00:21:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think they're using the signature on your driver's license, which lots of people do when they're teenagers. And then it's 15, 20, 30 years later and your signature may not look the same. So it's understandable that some of them don't match up, but we just want to make sure that people are aware that they can correct that and that they need to look out for that - to make sure that every vote is counted. And I will also encourage people to get their ballots in as soon as possible. I frequently told people I usually wait till the end because I like to see all the communication, all the mail ads, people reminding stuff. I just like seeing what's happening operationally with campaigns on the ground, so I will often delay returning my ballot to the end. And I like seeing how long after it actually is taking them to count, which is useful when you're trying to figure out how super close races are trending. This year, I'm getting my ballot in early. This is a significant election. I just don't want to leave any room for debate. I'm allowing resources to be used for people who really might not vote, not just ones who are hanging on to it because they work in this and they're trying to see information. I would encourage people to get their ballots in as soon as possible too. And if for some reason, it is later in the cycle, to use a dropbox because things can go awry with the mail system. They're generally great, but you just don't want to have some of the potential delays or worrying about did you get it in the mailbox before it is going to be postmarked with the date? Because some of the mail may be picked up earlier. And if it's the last day and you put it in there, then it'll be too late because it has to be postmarked by November 5th. So just get your ballots in as soon as possible.

Also today, I want to talk about a story that was in Cascade PBS about one of these issues - the capital gains tax and its impact on public schools. It could actually cost schools - take away billions of dollars in funding for schools - if that initiative passes. And it really went into - okay, how would it impact? What does it actually impact? What do the dollar amounts look like in there? What did that story cover? What did it show?

[00:23:28] Shauna Sowersby: So this is talking about 2109, which would repeal the capital gains tax, which is a 7% tax that's only levied on earnings from the sale of stocks and bonds after a certain amount of money. So not many people are paying this in the state to begin with - there's only a handful of folks that are paying this. So far, in the first year of collection, it collected almost a billion dollars - $847.5 million, according to OFM. And they did their own analysis on this and found that if I-2109 were to repeal the capital gains tax, the state would lose $2.2 billion over the next five years. And that's money that goes towards schools. The school account also goes towards construction for schools, so it would be a pretty significant amount of money that would be taken away from those programs. And then, of course, you always hear the argument from the other side of this that's saying - The state already has this money. We can find it from other places. Why do we need this? And then there's lots of different arguments for and against having this in place.

[00:24:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, there are a number of different arguments for and against. But looking at this amount and $2.2 billion and just - Oh, we could totally find the money somewhere else. And I think we're seeing such a lopsided result on this - once people learn about the cost impacts, support craters for this. Because people's experience on the ground across the state with school education funding kind of indicates the opposite. It seems like the state has been struggling for years to be able to find money for education. Several years ago, it took the McCleary case and the Supreme Court basically mandating that the Legislature fund schools to a greater degree. And now, many districts across the state are really struggling, talking about closing schools - certainly Seattle is in that situation. Marysville, Tacoma, school districts across the state are facing significant funding challenges from the state, which still is not funding to the level that it seems like they're constitutionally mandated to do. And certainly a lot of people are talking about that right now. So to just say - on top of the current woes and school districts facing significant financial challenges, to then take a couple billion more dollars away doesn't seem like it's realistic or something that wouldn't have catastrophic effects to public schools. And in addition, childcare, preschool funding - that helps a lot of people. We have Head Start, ECEAP here. We make sure that kids in Washington have access to pre-K, have access to those programs. And we are trying as a state, it seems like, to improve childcare affordability and access. And so to go backwards on those, especially at this time, seems like a lot of people are not in the mood to do that. Or, a majority of people right now seem to be indicated that they're not in the mood to do that. So that was just really interesting to dive in and see that result.

I also want to talk about a couple of events in Tacoma or Pierce County. One - which is kind of cool - this week, the Tacoma City Council decided to build their first rainbow crosswalk in the city. Which some people are like - Uh, it's a rainbow crosswalk. We have those all over here in Washington state. Why is that a big deal? Well, it's been a fight in Pierce County. There's a reason it hasn't happened until now. And lots of people think - Oh, Pierce County, Tacoma, super progressive. Well, the Pierce County Council just had an issue recently where - no, there is a very vocal member of the Pierce County Council who was very opposed to flying the Pride flag, to really accepting the LGBTQ community and celebrating them, welcoming them, expressed views that sometimes you hear from people on the religious right, certainly the political religious right. And so, this is a contentious issue in Pierce County, certainly in Tacoma. So in my opinion, it was really good to see an affirmation of this because, again, we're in this political time and I was watching various games, live sporting events earlier this week, which a ton of people tune into. Those are the events that get the most views. And saw just a really nasty, horrible, anti-trans commercial that is just showing - that's just normally showing - and other rhetoric about that. And so to have a community have to see that and really suggest that their existence is immoral or bad is just - that's a horrible thing for someone to have to go to. So I do think it's important to have these affirmations. This was an effort led by Councilmember Olgy Diaz, who is the first out queer Latina on the council - took quite a bit of work, but got this through. And so I was pleased to see that a lot of people are celebrating that around the region. And so that was great to see.

Also want to talk this week about the beginning of a really cool initiative in Pierce County impacting jurors, where previously jurors received $10 a day for service. It had been that amount for forever. It's really important in our justice system for people to be able to have a right to a trial with a jury of their peers. And that's people in the community. But it's really tough for average regular people to be able to serve when they're making over $10 an hour in their job and they get $10 a day for jury duty. And some people don't get paid time off for this. And this is something that we have to do when called - I was recently called for jury duty, I'm actually excited about it, but I am privileged enough to be able to do that and it's not going to be a financial hardship for me. That is not the case for everybody. So they're now in a pilot project of paying people $100 a day. This is a pretty unique program in Washington state. How did they arrive at this and how were they able to do this?

[00:30:00] Shauna Sowersby: So they conducted a survey that showed a lot of people saying that this was a financial hardship - to sit on a jury for $10 to $25 a day. So the Legislature appropriated money in 2023 and that money was later adjusted this year to increase that amount of funding to do this pilot program until May of next year.

[00:30:27] Crystal Fincher: Well, that is, I think, good news. One, it should - based on the research that they did, the study that they did - really allow more people to serve on those juries, allow more racially diverse juries. Because that is a significant issue where jury of peers should look like the community that you're in, people like you. And we know that Black and Brown people are disproportionately impacted by the justice system and facing juries - they're frequently all-white juries in communities that are very diverse. One of the things referenced in a story about this that we'll link is that studies have shown that more diverse juries actually achieve better results, more accurate results over time. They discuss more facts about the case, they really seem to engage with the facts of the case better when there is a more racially diverse jury. And that makes sense - if there are more people with more life experiences that they can bring - sometimes they may question something, they may think to look into a piece of evidence more that other people may not have. Certainly, having a wide variety of people with a wide variety of experiences on juries better serves justice. And that doesn't mean that people are found guilty more often or not guilty more often, but that the results seem to stand up to scrutiny from more diverse juries on whatever that result is and to be more accurate that way. So that was really cool to see that happen this week.

I also want to talk about a story in Yakima that was part of an investigative report done by Daniel Beekman that I thought was a really incredible story and really shows, especially in today's world and information environment, how important media and especially larger newspapers are in holding government accountable and really getting closer to justice for many people. A really challenging story that exposed so many disparities and so many elements of our criminal legal system and the supports that are supposed to be there, that many people think are there, that actually turn out not to be. So Daniel Beekman followed two people who had seeming mental health crises down what wound up being two very different paths. One of those paths ended in death for one of the people. So it starts out talking about the Yakima County coroner, which is interesting because coroners, unlike medical examiners, are not appointed based on their medical expertise. Coroners don't need to be doctors. This coroner - Curtice is his last name - was previously an emergency medical technician and paramedic. In 2023, he seemed to be having a mental health crisis. Deputies arrived, seemed to treat him with kid gloves - talking him through the issue because they knew him, he was a known quantity, he was an elected official. And so they seemed to approach the issue in a way that seemed to prioritize de-escalation and connecting him with mental health services. And then, by the time it got to the deputy prosecutors - however, because he was erratic, ended up recommending that he be charged with felony assault. But the county prosecutor declined to pursue the case saying - Hey, he was intoxicated and in crisis. And he also, according to his wife, kicked her. And that was another potential crime that he could have been charged with. The wife eventually said he kicked her accidentally - that didn't wind up in any charges. He did an interview with a TV station saying it was because of childhood PTSD, because of his first responder work that led to him using alcohol to cope. And he said he planned to get help for the alcoholism, joining a support group. So really, saying - This person was in crisis. We don't want to saddle them with all of the lifelong challenges that come from being involved in the criminal legal system. And so he wound up being able to treat that and return to work as a coroner.

Followed another story of a 41-year-old man who was living with his parents. He seemed to experience paranoia or delusions. He thought that people were out to assassinate him, had a history of mental challenges. Eventually, one night, he was in such a crisis that his mother ended up calling for help - which is what a lot of people are put in the position to do, where they have someone who they're trying to support or provide aid to, a family member. And a situation spirals out of control - it turns violent in a way that they don't feel they can handle themselves. And so they call police for help. They call 911 for help and police respond in these situations. And what they're hoping is that they can be subdued, they can be calmed down, and perhaps really connected to services that will help them, whether that's inpatient or not. That's certainly the hope of parents. So this time his mother called - the city jail wouldn't admit him due to his obvious mental health concerns, so he was booked into the county jail for misdemeanor domestic violence assault. His mother was hoping that police would take the son to the hospital, but he wound up in jail - and not just in the city jail, but in the county jail. And that's usually where people with felonies and more serious crimes wind up. And so, this didn't go down the path that it did with the coroner. This went down another path where he was arrested and detained in a way that seemed to escalate his anxiety, antagonism, his mental state. Now, this county jail was supposed to have special areas and a different protocol for people with mental health concerns. They were not supposed to be treated as a normal incarcerated person there. Obviously, that makes sense that they have different needs and that putting them in a population with other people can pose a risk not only to that person, but to the other people there because they're having challenges and behavioral health challenges at the time. That didn't happen in this situation, even though it was supposed to. And he ended up having a challenge, he was not connected to reality, feeling that they were coming after him. They wind up kind of chasing him, trying to track him through this general area in the Yakima County Jail - there's video in this story. And it turns - the situation completely escalates. The guards there at the jail ended up restraining him in a really challenging way, in a way that has resulted in death for other people. They sprayed him with pepper spray, which generally is not supposed to happen - that only increases the agitation from someone who is already in a behavioral health crisis. And he was lying on the floor face down, and they had been doing that for about 10 minutes before they said they noticed he was no longer breathing. There was a nurse watching this entire time, who was familiar with more things that should have happened, who - she said that she was begging them to stop, that she was begging them to get off of them, that she knew this was headed in a very, very bad direction. None of that was heeded. And so as this was happening this entire time, he was hooded. So just imagining being face down, it's challenging to breathe, in a very excited state. You've been sprayed with pepper spray, making it hard to breathe, and then having a hood over your head. All escalating steps of things that should never have happened to begin with. And it wound up with this person being dead.

The coroner in this case - that we previously talked about - who had his mental health situation treated differently, ended up initially ruling this as an accidental death, like as an accidental death. And so that's where things stood. And so Daniel Beekman, Sydney Brownstone, and Miyoko Wolf, who contributed to this, ended up after a lot of investigation, public disclosure requests, piecing together information through lots of interviews. And getting the video of this, which really shows this person did not just die - clearly. And speaking with other experts, other medical examiners who said this was flat out an inappropriate and incorrect decision to rule this just basically a seeming natural death. That coroner ended up reversing his decision. And in this whole thing - one, it just showed the injustice of the system. But two, started shining more of a spotlight on this coroner. And then it is revealed that it looks like he was inappropriately taking drugs that came in with people that were accessible to him, using them illegally, really just a lot of misconduct in that office. And so now lots of people are calling on this coroner to resign. And he has not yet, but it is really just an incredible story of how different people are treated differently in our criminal legal system, what privilege gets you in this system, and how much the deck is stacked against particularly Black and Brown people in mental health crises. In fact, that nexus of things is - people who have behavioral health challenges, particularly if they're Black or Brown - are most likely to die, are most likely to have poor outcomes, are most likely to see things escalate to the point of significant injury or death. And it just also shows how many safeguards we feel are in the system, how many safeguards are on paper that don't wind up in practice. And the reality of the different levels of levers in our system and how they don't exist, how they fail, how for one reason or another they don't happen in the way that they're supposed to happen. And we think - Hey, just call the police and it's handled. Someone commits a crime, we just jail 'em. Oh, someone does that, they'll get taken to the hospital. You get these benefits - it just happens that way. And there are so many different elements in this that are complicated that lead to worse outcomes for the community, for the people involved - that I think it really just shows that we have so much reflection and examination of this system to do. Yet right now, a lot of the rhetoric is just really right now at a point of adding additional stress to the system that really doesn't have many more resources and that is not equipped to handle the challenges of today. And we're talking about everything but that, it seems, in our public safety discussions. What did you think when you saw this story and what do you think this says about the role of reporting in the community and what this means to have this uncovered?

[00:41:46] Shauna Sowersby: As we alluded to and talked a little bit about earlier, this shows the differences between how two different people can be treated in very similar instances. Why does one get treated one way and one get treated another? I also think reporting in this case - would we have even known about what this coroner was doing if reporters hadn't dug their heels in and really gone in on this? So I think all around they did really, really nice job on this - just tying those two stories in together and also exposing this coroner for the things that he's doing behind the scenes and apparently has been doing for quite some time.

[00:42:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, really interesting to see this. And so ultimately now, especially with all of this information that's been uncovered, the gentleman, Mr. Hua - his mom, has filed a $50 million tort claim against the county - that happened, I believe, last week. Hua's cousin sent a letter to Governor Jay Inslee asking for an independent investigation of this death. The board of Yakima County commissioners voted 3-0 to sign a letter calling on Coroner Curtice to step down immediately. Because Curtice is an independently elected official, it is more complicated than that. But also the county sheriff and the Yakima County Auditor also signed the letter. So, Coroner Curtice is currently on leave. He hasn't said anything or responded in this, but this has certainly also started a number of processes that really would not have been possible but for this information being uncovered. So we'll continue to follow up on this and see what the updates are. But man, just a really tragic, tragic story and circumstance and really gets at so many deficiencies in our current mental health and criminal legal systems.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 18th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was state politics reporter for Cascade PBS, Shauna Sowersby. You can find Shauna at Twitter. You can follow me and Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky because my goodness, X is a mess. I'm still on there, but oof - oof, it is in rough shape. So hop on over to Bluesky - we will see. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else 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 shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. Again, you can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and linked from the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. And get your ballot in.