Opinion

More choices for voters

Initiative 26 gives voters more choices.

Next week’s primary isn’t exactly a barn-burner, as many races only have two candidates, at best. Most candidates will move on to the general election. Still, there is an issue on the ballot that deserves attention.

King County Initiative 26 asks voters if they want to consider making county-level offices non-partisan. We think they should.

First, your vote this time actually won’t make that happen. The issue on the primary ballot only directs the measure going on the general election ballot if a majority of voters say ‘yes.’ But the initiative won’t be on the November ballot unless we say ‘yes’ this month.

If Initiative 26 is approved by voters, it would place a charter amendment on the November 2008 general election ballot that would ask:

“Shall the King County Charter be amended to make the offices of King county executive, King county assessor and King county council nonpartisan, and to establish the nonpartisan selection of districting committee members?”

When citizens formed King County’s charter several years ago, the recommendation was to make these offices non-partisan. Instead, the council at the time kept the political designations on office-holders. There was no good reason to have partisan offices then or now.

Consider:

Is flood control best handled by the Democrats or the Republicans?

Should our criminal justice system be of the Democratic persuasion or Republican?

Should there be buses for Democrats or Republicans?

You get the drift.

Just as our cities work fine without the partisan bickering of the office holders, so, too, will King County. What counts, at least at this level, is what the candidate brings to the table in terms of finding solutions to the ongoing problem of governance.

Both former governors Booth Gardner and Dan Evans have endorsed this change. Unfortunately, the partisan King County Council has refused to allow this issue to go on the ballot even though such respected groups as the Municipal League and the League of Women Voters asked that it be done.

The initiative wouldn’t ban party endorsements. Candidates still would be able to list endorsements, groups or organizations in the voters’ guide.

Voting yes on I-26 would make our elections more competitive and give voters more choices. Isn’t that the way they should be?

Vote yes on I-26.

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 29 edition online now. Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates