Pro: Approve districts for Everett City Council, and the 5-2 plan
By Vicki Roberts-Gassler
For The Herald
The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County supports approval of Proposition 1 regarding districts for the Everett City Council, and a yes vote on Proposition 2A, the 5-2 plan.
We believe that the arguments for districting Everett are clear and convincing. The city has grown and become more diverse economically and racially over the past decades, and this trend is set to continue. Our City Council should reflect the diversity of the city it represents. In our nearly 100 years of existence, the League of Women Voters has always favored the best possible representation of our whole population, which is a crucial key to real democracy.
Currently council members must campaign across the whole city. With a smaller body of constituents, the residents of one district, candidates will have an increased opportunity to meet people personally in their own neighborhoods rather than depending heavily on expensive advertising. This more cost-effective campaigning method potentially opens up the field for a wider pool of candidates with more limited financial means. District members will be more informed about and more responsive to those issues that affect a specific district, such as zoning, street repair and park maintenance.
On the other hand, candidates campaigning throughout the city for the at-large positions must necessarily look at the big picture, the interests of the city as a whole. This big picture is essential for issues like budgeting, law enforcement and city regulations.
With a combination of district representatives and council members elected at-large from the whole city, each citizen will be voting on a number of council members. The question then becomes one of what balance of districts with possible specific issues and at-large positions for the overall view provides the best representation for our citizens.
The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County strongly supports Proposition 2A, the 5-2 option, with five districts and two council members elected from the city at-large. We believe this offers the best chance to fairly represent all the neighborhoods of the city with their diverse populations and specific needs. With our current population of 109,000, five districts of 21,900 would result. From that many people we are confident that competent candidates would come forward, as they do in much smaller cities, and indeed did in Everett’s past when the population was much smaller. Since the city is predicted to grow by up to 60,000 new residents in the next two decades, the pool of potential candidates in each district is inevitably going to increase.
With five districts and two at-large members, there is less of a chance that one district’s interests would prevail over the others in the case of a conflict.
No more than three of the council members would live in any one district. In contrast, with a 4-3 method it would be possible to end up with all three at-large members coming from the same district, who could form a bloc of four with the representative of that district. As four members of the current council live within a few streets of each other, this is not an unlikely outcome. While a contentious issue that would pit one district against the others might never occur, with a 5-2 split of districts and at-large members the possibility of an undemocratic decision in such an instance is eliminated.
Many members of the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County worked along with Everett Districts Now to promote this more democratic way of electing the Everett City Council. City residents may have seen us collecting signatures for an initiative, a process that was discontinued when the City Council placed the issue on the ballot.
We are pleased that it is on the ballot, and hope the voters will do their part by approving Proposition 1. We further hope that voters will agree to go all the way to better representation and choose Yes on Proposition 2A.
Vicki Roberts-Gassler is president-elect for the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County. She lives in Everett.
Con: Districts won’t deliver diversity, voter turnout that’s promised
By Robert Mayer, Sherry Ord and Sharen Rojas
For The Herald
The Oct. 7 Herald editorial recommended approval of Everett City Council districts (“Yes on Everett council districts; yes on 4-3 plan”), but missed some important issues. As Everett voters, not politicians, we have serious concerns about the proposition that would take away our right to vote for all council members.
Experience with districts in other cities does not show the improved voter turnout and diversity that proponents claim:
Other Washington cities about our size (Bellevue, Renton, Kent, Vancouver, Spokane Valley) don’t have districts. Cities having districts are generally smaller (Bremerton, Yakima, Bellingham, Aberdeen) or much larger (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane). In Seattle, each one of the seven council districts has more actual voters than all of Everett’s proposed districts combined. Is Seattle really the model for a well-run city? Many Seattle citizens and small business owners are leaving Seattle for Everett.
Similar Washington cities that have districts, on average, do not have better voter turnout, more candidates running, more diverse councils, or much less expensive elections than cities that don’t have districts. There is no actual data that districts improve these factors.
Without districts, in 2015 and 2017, Everett had contested elections and primaries in all but one city council race. In contrast, Bellingham in the same years had only one contested district election and no primaries. In Bremerton, with districts, only two-thirds of the elections in those years were contested and none had primaries. Lack of contested elections and primaries due to districts shows less participation and means fewer candidate choices for voters.
Geography shouldn’t override other considerations:
• Implementing districts would make geography the primary consideration for voters over all others such as diversity, stands on the issues, experience and competence, etc.
• The effort to define equitable district geographic boundaries and set up the voting infrastructure would take time and money. Everett is short of money and faces years of deficits unless services are cut or taxes are raised. Is this plan worth your money?
Districts don’t have public support:
• In the summer of 2016, the districting activists proposed to the Charter Review Committee a revision to incorporate districts into the city charter. Their argument was based on an inaccurate and misleading description of the history of Everett, its city council and the diversity of the council. The Charter Review Committee rejected their request.
• In recent elections, several candidates made their support of districts a key part of their campaign but voters decided this is not an issue and didn’t elect those candidates.
• In high-profile petition campaigns in both 2017 and 2018 with plenty of media attention, activists failed to collect enough signatures to qualify their districting proposition for the ballot. Despite these failed efforts, supporting council members convinced the rest of the council that charter ballot rules should be set aside and the issue placed on the ballot anyway.
• District activists point to the online survey the city conducted this summer where 80 percent of the respondents favored districts. The survey was publicized primarily to attendees of a series of city-sponsored information meetings attended mostly by district supporters. Not surprisingly, of the 483 respondents, 386 favored districts. They represent only 2.2 percent of the number of actual voters (17,512) in the last mayor’s race in November.
The proposal is driven by politics – not better representation.
Key proponents pushing for districts ran for council positions and lost. That could be part of their motivation to change the rules.
Restricting eligible candidates to small geographic districts limits or eliminates voter’s choices as Bellingham and Bremerton have shown. Uncontested elections that have only one candidate give voters no choice. That’s not a problem in Seattle where each district has more voters than all of Everett.
While proponents argue that districts will make campaigning more affordable, districts won’t prevent big outside donors from pumping cash into campaigns to elect friendly council members. Districts worsen this by making it easier due to the reduced number of candidates competing for each position. The real fairness solution would be to limit campaign donations.
As stated in The Herald’s editorial, the National League of Cities says that district representation can lead to more infighting and be less likely to prioritize issues of importance at the citywide levels. Council members could prioritize actions to get re-elected in their district. Isn’t ten years of that behavior in Washington, D.C. enough?
Presently all council members are elected by and accountable to all voters in Everett. Don’t give up your right to vote for all council positions. Vote no to districts.
Robert Mayer, Sherry Ord and Sharen Rojas live in Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
