Finally we get to the actual candidates, as opposed to issues. For better or worse, I already did most of the work here during the primary. Thus, again Adam Smith for U.S. Representative District No. 9. And again Steve Drew, Kim Wyman, Betty J. Gould, Gary Warnock, William Ferrell, and Debra Mealy for Thurston County Assessor, Auditor, Clerk,Coroner, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheriff, respectively.
As far as U.S. Senator is concerned, I have a long-standing practice of not voting for Dino Rossi. Part of this is he just seems too polished and insincere. But this time around, I’m also aggravated by his intention to continue the “don’t tax and spend anyway” (DT&SA) policies promoted by Republicans for years. So I suppose I’ll have to vote for Patty Murray because I think she’s more likely to be willing to raise taxes as necessary. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But Jeebus, we need someone to take balanced budgets seriously.
I cannot help but think of the nickname “The Thermometer” whenever I see yard signs promoting Chris Reykdal. And that makes me laugh. In any event, Jason Hearn seems to want to cut taxes across the board, without any explanation as to what programs he’d correspondingly cut. Another DT&SA Republican we cannot abide. So Reykdal.
Chris Ward has a terrible campaign website that makes me angry at its amateurishness and lack of information. Moreover, Ward appears to be an initiative junkie. Although I’ve previously taken issue with Sam Hunt regarding the isthmus, and Ward appears to be pro-Capitol Lake, on the balance I suppose I’ll have to support Hunt again for Representative, District No. 22 Position No. 2.
A year ago, I voted for Karen Valenzuela for County Commissioner District No. 3. In this November’s rematch with Pat Beehler, I plan to do the same. Ah, laziness.
My reason for declining to vote for Shawn Myers for Thurston County Treasurer in August was her incumbency. My reason for declining to vote for Tom Nelson was his use of the phrase “GOP Party.” The grammar queen in me trumps my preference for change. Myers it is.
None of the judicial elections are contested with the exception of the Sanders-Wiggins race for Supreme Court Justice Position No. 6, so I’ll only be discussing that race. I believe Sanders is getting a bum rap regarding his comments on race and crime. What Justice Sanders said was “certain minority groups” are “disproportionally represented in prison because they have a crime problem.” While I disagree with Justice Sanders that this is unambiguously true, I do suspect it is likely true. Note he did not say there’s an immutable racial component to criminality, or that other factors are not in play, or even that race is a cause. Only if you believe the investigation choices, charging decisions, conviction rates, and sentencing determinations are the sole cause of the disproportional representation can you disagree with Justice Sanders. That is, if you think, say, members of “certain minority groups” actually do commit more crimes than the population at large–regardless of whether that’s because of economic disparity, housing density, or culture–you don’t disagree with what Justice Sanders actually said. It’s only if you believe there is no difference in commission rates, but that the disparity arises solely out of enforcement and other systematic concerns–e.g. blacks as a group commit the same number and severity of crimes as whites per capita, but whites are less frequently investigated by police, less frequently prosecuted, less frequently convicted, and/or less severely punished–that you can legitimately disagree.
As much as I’m concerned by Sanders’ apparent queer unfriendliness and pro-business decisionmaking, I’m more concerned by Wiggins’ position on campaign finance reform. While I would love to get rid of judicial elections in general, if we’re going to have them, they’ll have to comply with the First Amendment. So, reluctantly, Richard B. Sanders.