News
WTF in the Muni Court Races?
Just got back from City Hall, where staffers and city council members were generally: 1) Relieved that both liquor initiatives appeared to be going down (had both passed, along with the successful Initiative 1107, the city would have been facing a two-year shortfall of $11.7 million); 2) Unsurprised by the apparent outcomes in other races, including the failed King County Prop. 1, which would have provided the city with millions for criminal justice services; and 3) Totally shocked by the results in both Seattle Municipal Court races, in which incumbent judges got absolutely clobbered---as of this afternoon, presiding judge Edsonya Charles was losing to challenger Ed McKenna, 30 to 70, and five term judge Michael Hurtado was losing to challenger Karen Donohue 26 to 74.
To see incumbents overturned so soundly in races so far down the ballot is pretty much unheard-of. So what the heck is going on?
One theory is that the people who voted in the local judicial races were simply better informed than those who voted in other races but skipped the court elections. Those voters would, in theory, have read more about the races, including endorsements (which trended strongly for McKenna and Donohue), and King County Bar Association ratings (which strongly favored McKenna and Hurtado) would have more informed opinions about the candidates.
That theory is somewhat borne out by the numbers. In the Seattle school levy race---the only other Seattle-only race---just over 130,000 people have voted so far, according to King County Elections. In the Charles-McKenna race, just over 103,000 people voted---a drop-off of about 21 percent. In the Hurtado-Donohue race, the drop-off was even more severe---to just over 99,000, a reduction of more than 23 percent. The voters that stuck around for the down-ballot races could have been more informed than those who skipped those seats.
Another theory is that voters were aware of the fact that, earlier this year, Charles fought an ugly (and unsuccessful) battle to prevent the city council from reducing the court by one judge to help close the city's budget shortfall, one of the only times the court itself has been in the news this year. (A city study showed that judges have too little workload to justify all eight judicial positions). Charles sued the city to keep all eight judge positions, but lost, creating a rift between the court and city departments. In this "throw the bums out" scenario, voters were simply annoyed by the court's unwillingness to help shoulder the burden of the city's $67 million budget shortfall.
Finally---and this one's kind of out there---there's the theory that Charles is simply too closely associated with former Mayor Nickels, who lost in the primary last year. Nickels appointed Charles to the court in 2004. Under this theory, Hurtado would simply be collateral damage.
Whatever the reason, last night's vote was a nearly unprecedented repudiation for two incumbents so far down the ballot they might as well be off the radar.
To see incumbents overturned so soundly in races so far down the ballot is pretty much unheard-of. So what the heck is going on?
One theory is that the people who voted in the local judicial races were simply better informed than those who voted in other races but skipped the court elections. Those voters would, in theory, have read more about the races, including endorsements (which trended strongly for McKenna and Donohue), and King County Bar Association ratings (which strongly favored McKenna and Hurtado) would have more informed opinions about the candidates.
That theory is somewhat borne out by the numbers. In the Seattle school levy race---the only other Seattle-only race---just over 130,000 people have voted so far, according to King County Elections. In the Charles-McKenna race, just over 103,000 people voted---a drop-off of about 21 percent. In the Hurtado-Donohue race, the drop-off was even more severe---to just over 99,000, a reduction of more than 23 percent. The voters that stuck around for the down-ballot races could have been more informed than those who skipped those seats.
Another theory is that voters were aware of the fact that, earlier this year, Charles fought an ugly (and unsuccessful) battle to prevent the city council from reducing the court by one judge to help close the city's budget shortfall, one of the only times the court itself has been in the news this year. (A city study showed that judges have too little workload to justify all eight judicial positions). Charles sued the city to keep all eight judge positions, but lost, creating a rift between the court and city departments. In this "throw the bums out" scenario, voters were simply annoyed by the court's unwillingness to help shoulder the burden of the city's $67 million budget shortfall.
Finally---and this one's kind of out there---there's the theory that Charles is simply too closely associated with former Mayor Nickels, who lost in the primary last year. Nickels appointed Charles to the court in 2004. Under this theory, Hurtado would simply be collateral damage.
Whatever the reason, last night's vote was a nearly unprecedented repudiation for two incumbents so far down the ballot they might as well be off the radar.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
