Fuse Washington

Statewide Races

Here are Fuse's endorsements in the top races in the state:
Governor: Chris Gregiore
Attorney General: John Ladenburg
Lands Commissioner: Peter Goldmark
State Supreme Court: Mary Fairhurst

Judges

We understand the temptation to take a pass on voting for judges. They’re at the very end of the ballot, you have no idea who they are, and it’s straight up hard to find any real information about them.

But judicial races are actually the most important choices on the primary ballot.

These folks have the final say over everything from our last election for governor to your last disputed parking ticket. And unlike other offices, the primary is the final election for most judges; any candidate who wins with over 50% of the vote is elected and doesn’t have to run again in the November general election.

Fuse has endorsed candidates only in a couple of judicial races. In others, we have compiled information that we think is valuable from bar associations and other organizations. For more information, see www.VotingForJudges.org. See information on judicial races below.

Initiative 26

Our recommendation

• We’re neutral on the first question (Should the Charter be amended?)
• We support the Council-Proposed Alternative on the second question (If it is amended, how should it be amended?).

Review the details here.

for more information, see www.VotingForJudges.org

	Fuse Endorsement	Municipal League	King County Bar Association	NARAL	WA State Labor Council
Mary Fairhurst		Outstanding	Exceptionally Well Qualified	Endorsed	Endorsed
Michael J. Bond		Very Good	Qualified

State Supreme Court, Position #4

King County Superior Court, Position #1

King County Superior Court, Position #10

King County Superior Court, Position #22

King County Superior Court, Position #26

King County Superior Court, Position #37

King County Superior Court, Position #53

Our recommendation:

• We’re neutral on the first question (Should the Charter be amended?)
• We support the Council-Proposed Alternative on the second question (If it is amended, how should it be amended?).

The scoop:

We support non-partisan government, but the initiative is actually a deceptive attempt to promote a partisan agenda. 

This initiative is sponsored by a Republican Councilmember and funded by three prominent Republican businessmen.  Concerned about the difficulty of electing Republicans in an increasingly Democratic county, they hope to improve their odds by taking party identification off the ballot.

Initiave 26 makes county offices non-partisan and eliminates all partisan references in county offices, while the Council-Proposed Alternative makes the offices non-partisan but lets candidates put a party preference next to their name if they want to (similar to the top 2 system).   

The Council alternative makes county government nonpartisan while protecting the voter’s “right to know” by allowing candidates to place a party preference on the ballot.  We think that’s important information for voters to have, and we don’t think it’s fair or democratic for candidates from either party to hide their party affiliation in hopes of improving their chances of winning. 

The question is structured in a fairly confusing two step way: (1) should there be a charter amendment yes or no, and (2) regardless of how you voted on 1, which alternative should be on the ballot if one is on the ballot.  Our recommendation, once again, is to support the Council Proposed Alternaitve on question 2.

See http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=23835&eid=1225  for more info about the specific of the measure.

See http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/nonpartisan_my_ass for more information about the funders.