How Gavin Voted, 2014 Edition:
Yeah, it's mostly local elections, so a lot of this stuff won't be of use to many people, but I'm gonna share it anyway. Elections are important, and I think talking about the process is important, too.
I-1352: This one troubled me a lot more than it should have. It's to reduce class sizes, which is awesome, but it had no idea where to get the funds. It would be another unfunded educational mandate. And funding it could cut the budget of other areas of education.
But as I thought about it, I realized... a "no" vote is telling the legislature, "Reducing class sizes is too expensive." And I don't believe that. I want smaller class sizes. I wish the initiative was better written, yes, but that's not enough to vote no. Gavin voted: Yes.
I-591: 591 was created by the NRA in response to initiative 594. It says there should never be a gun law in Washington more stringent than the national laws. I don't see that as particularly helpful. We need better safety laws than the national baseline. Gavin voted: No.
I-594: 594 strengthens our existing gun laws, particularly surrounding background checks during gun sales. This makes sense to me. Background checks for gun sales just seem like a common sense thing; some people simply shouldn't have guns, and making it less convenient for them to get their hands on them just makes sense. Gavin voted: Yes.
Advisory Votes: One of Tim Eyman's initiatives in the past means that every time the Legislature eliminates a tax break or raises a tax -- you know, like we hire them to do as part of budgeting -- an advisory vote goes before the public with inflammatory language. "The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, a tax. This tax increase should be..." The vote does NOTHING. It's a popularity contest on taxes, and it's a ridiculous waste of time and effort. I always vote to maintain them. We hired the legislature to do their job. Let's not micromanage one part of their job; if you don't like how they're working out, fire yours and hire a new one. As always, Gavin voted: Maintained, on all.
US Representative District 9: Huh. I thought I was back in McDermott's district. But instead, I'm under Adam Smith's district. Adam Smith is the incumbent, and he's voted for gay rights, for immigration reform, for progressive taxation, and against slashing food stamp benefits. He's been communicative with his constituents, and generally done a good job. His opponent, Doug Basler, appears to be a moderate Republican, but his campaign has been half-hearted. I'll go with the man who has proven himself a good representative rather than give the Republicans a stronger majority in the House. Gavin voted: Adam Smith.
State Senator, District 37: I love it when I have a good choice and an awesome choice. One one hand, I've got Louis Watanabe, a professor running on a progressive platform of increasing opportunities for young adults in the community. And then there's Pramila Jayapal, who has a long history of fighting for immigrant rights and reform, civil liberties, economic fairness, and women's issues. One has an attractive platform. The other has an even more attractive platform and a proven history of working hard. Gavin voted: Pramila Jayapal.
Representative 1, District 37: Then there's the case of the problematic choice and the awful choice. Sharon Tomiko Santos has voted against transit development, has been a bit froggy on the environment, and seems okay with predatory lending. However, she's solid with education, at least. Her opponent, Daniel Bretzke, supports charter schools, unrestricted online ride-sharing businesses, and no background checks on firearms. So... I'm kinda holding my nose here while I cast my vote. Gavin voted: Sharon Tomiko Santos.
Representative 2, District 37: And here's someone who's pretty much done nothing vs. the person who's not really identifying her platform, party, or anything else. Eric Pettigrew has done remarkably little in his time in the state legislature, but at least he tends to support progressive causes. Tamra Smilanich has no party and no announced platform I can find. So... again, I hold my nose and cast my vote. Gavin voted: Eric Pettigrew.
A few unopposed races: The current prosecuting attorney, Dan Satterberg, is a moderate Republican who has been a competent prosecutor. After marijuana was legalized in the state, he dropped all charges for possession. No issues there. A couple of the State supreme court positions are unopposed: Mary Yu was the first Asian American in our state Supreme Court, as well as the first member of the LGBTQ community there, and she's done well in that position; and Mary Fairhurt fights for fairness in the law for people of color, women, and victims of domestic violence. Gavin voted: for all three of them; they're worth supporting.
State Supreme Court, Position 4: We've got one guy who has a long, proven track record as a reasonable, sensible judge who has earned respect as the senior member of the state supreme court: Charles Johnson. Then there's Eddie Yoon, who's running on a campaign promise to, "put a fire on (the rest of the Supreme Court's) balls," and who wants the job because it's easy, but he kinda prefers to lose. Also, smell your urine. This is a super-easy decision. Gavin voted: Charles W. Johnson.
State Supreme Court, Position 7: Okay, so on one hand you've got a disbarred lawyer who might not even be able to serve if he was elected, because he's, you know, disbarred. He's running as John (Zamboni) Scannell, because he used to drive the Zamboni at the Seattle hockey games where he pretended to eat the heads of raw fish. On the other hand, there's the incumbent, qualified judge who disbarred Mr. Scannell. This one's easy. Gavin voted: Debora L. Stephens.
Some more unopposed races: Court of Appeals position 1, Michael J. Trickey, was called a "radical feminist, father- hating, closet homo" by one of the people he ruled against. Sounds like a good guy to me! He, Linda Lau, and Ann Schindler (the other Court of Appeals choices) are all perfectly qualified judges running unopposed. Judge Johanna Bender, for the West Electoral District position 1, is qualified and is dedicated to domestic violence issues as well as educating new lawyers. Gavin voted: for all of them.
West Electoral District Judge Position 2: Mark Chow has a long, proven career. His opponent, Phillip Tavel, has a promising career ahead of him, and might be worth supporting in the future, but for now... Gavin voted: Mark C. Chow.
More unopposed: Art Chapman, Eileen Kato, Anne Harper, and Ed McKenna are all well-qualified judges for their positions. Anne Harper even has an election webpage, despite running unopposed. No write-ins needed here. Gavin voted: for all of them.
Seattle Municipal Court, Position 2: Both people running here are qualified for the position. C. Kimi Kondo is facing a challenge from Jon Zimmerman, who claims Kondo is unqualified because of her low ratings in the Bar survey -- which is unscientific and just a place for people to complain. Kondo, meanwhile, wants to improve the court's computer system out of DOS. Gavin voted: C. Kimi Kondo.
A few more unopposed: Steve Rosen, Judith Montgomery Hightower, Willie Gregory, and Karen Donohue are all perfectly qualified for their judge positions. They're all incumbents, and there's no challenge or reason to vote against them. Gavin voted: for all of them.
Seattle Municipal Court Position 7: The incumbent, Fred Bonner, has had a long history on the bench, but he seems to be falling down on the job lately, failing to attend meetings, etc. (He even has a minor scandal at the moment of parking his car in the carpool-only parking area.) His challenger, Damon Shadid, is running on a platform of assuring that poor and underserved communities receive fair treatment under the law, and he's focused and dedicated. Gavin voted: Damon Shadid.
Seattle Prop 1A and 1B: Oh, man. The fact that these two things are up against each other in this way... well, the Stranger summed it up when they said, "It's a long story, and the short of it is that everyone's terrible." Okay, so first pick if we want either one of them to pass, and then, if that passes, we pick which one we want. This deals with early childhood education, which is important; that's a no-brainer to support as a concept.
Then we have to figure out which one we want. 1A wants better pay and training for childcare workers. 1B wants free and reduced-cost preschools for poor kids in Seattle. And we can only have one. Dammit. In the end, I've got to go with the one that puts a better investment into the future. Gavin voted: Yes, 1B.
Seattle Citizen Petition 1: Woo! Monorail! ...oh, wait. This isn't to build a monorail? It's just to spend a lot of money to study the possibility of the monorail? And... wait, you couldn't even write a statement for the voter's guide? And it's not integrated into existing plans? And it would compete with existing public transit funds? And the person who wrote the initiative would get the money for the "study"?... yeah, this is more than a little shady to me. Gavin voted: No.
Seattle Transportation Benefit Proposition 1: Should we start funding transit better around Seattle? Is this even a question? I mean, the source for funding is obnoxious -- a sales tax -- and we've got to start finding better ways to pay for this sort of thing. But "should we fund public transit at reasonable levels?" isn't even really a debate worth having. The answer is obvious. Gavin voted: Yes.
There we go! That's how I voted this year!
I-1352: This one troubled me a lot more than it should have. It's to reduce class sizes, which is awesome, but it had no idea where to get the funds. It would be another unfunded educational mandate. And funding it could cut the budget of other areas of education.
But as I thought about it, I realized... a "no" vote is telling the legislature, "Reducing class sizes is too expensive." And I don't believe that. I want smaller class sizes. I wish the initiative was better written, yes, but that's not enough to vote no. Gavin voted: Yes.
I-591: 591 was created by the NRA in response to initiative 594. It says there should never be a gun law in Washington more stringent than the national laws. I don't see that as particularly helpful. We need better safety laws than the national baseline. Gavin voted: No.
I-594: 594 strengthens our existing gun laws, particularly surrounding background checks during gun sales. This makes sense to me. Background checks for gun sales just seem like a common sense thing; some people simply shouldn't have guns, and making it less convenient for them to get their hands on them just makes sense. Gavin voted: Yes.
Advisory Votes: One of Tim Eyman's initiatives in the past means that every time the Legislature eliminates a tax break or raises a tax -- you know, like we hire them to do as part of budgeting -- an advisory vote goes before the public with inflammatory language. "The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, a tax. This tax increase should be..." The vote does NOTHING. It's a popularity contest on taxes, and it's a ridiculous waste of time and effort. I always vote to maintain them. We hired the legislature to do their job. Let's not micromanage one part of their job; if you don't like how they're working out, fire yours and hire a new one. As always, Gavin voted: Maintained, on all.
US Representative District 9: Huh. I thought I was back in McDermott's district. But instead, I'm under Adam Smith's district. Adam Smith is the incumbent, and he's voted for gay rights, for immigration reform, for progressive taxation, and against slashing food stamp benefits. He's been communicative with his constituents, and generally done a good job. His opponent, Doug Basler, appears to be a moderate Republican, but his campaign has been half-hearted. I'll go with the man who has proven himself a good representative rather than give the Republicans a stronger majority in the House. Gavin voted: Adam Smith.
State Senator, District 37: I love it when I have a good choice and an awesome choice. One one hand, I've got Louis Watanabe, a professor running on a progressive platform of increasing opportunities for young adults in the community. And then there's Pramila Jayapal, who has a long history of fighting for immigrant rights and reform, civil liberties, economic fairness, and women's issues. One has an attractive platform. The other has an even more attractive platform and a proven history of working hard. Gavin voted: Pramila Jayapal.
Representative 1, District 37: Then there's the case of the problematic choice and the awful choice. Sharon Tomiko Santos has voted against transit development, has been a bit froggy on the environment, and seems okay with predatory lending. However, she's solid with education, at least. Her opponent, Daniel Bretzke, supports charter schools, unrestricted online ride-sharing businesses, and no background checks on firearms. So... I'm kinda holding my nose here while I cast my vote. Gavin voted: Sharon Tomiko Santos.
Representative 2, District 37: And here's someone who's pretty much done nothing vs. the person who's not really identifying her platform, party, or anything else. Eric Pettigrew has done remarkably little in his time in the state legislature, but at least he tends to support progressive causes. Tamra Smilanich has no party and no announced platform I can find. So... again, I hold my nose and cast my vote. Gavin voted: Eric Pettigrew.
A few unopposed races: The current prosecuting attorney, Dan Satterberg, is a moderate Republican who has been a competent prosecutor. After marijuana was legalized in the state, he dropped all charges for possession. No issues there. A couple of the State supreme court positions are unopposed: Mary Yu was the first Asian American in our state Supreme Court, as well as the first member of the LGBTQ community there, and she's done well in that position; and Mary Fairhurt fights for fairness in the law for people of color, women, and victims of domestic violence. Gavin voted: for all three of them; they're worth supporting.
State Supreme Court, Position 4: We've got one guy who has a long, proven track record as a reasonable, sensible judge who has earned respect as the senior member of the state supreme court: Charles Johnson. Then there's Eddie Yoon, who's running on a campaign promise to, "put a fire on (the rest of the Supreme Court's) balls," and who wants the job because it's easy, but he kinda prefers to lose. Also, smell your urine. This is a super-easy decision. Gavin voted: Charles W. Johnson.
State Supreme Court, Position 7: Okay, so on one hand you've got a disbarred lawyer who might not even be able to serve if he was elected, because he's, you know, disbarred. He's running as John (Zamboni) Scannell, because he used to drive the Zamboni at the Seattle hockey games where he pretended to eat the heads of raw fish. On the other hand, there's the incumbent, qualified judge who disbarred Mr. Scannell. This one's easy. Gavin voted: Debora L. Stephens.
Some more unopposed races: Court of Appeals position 1, Michael J. Trickey, was called a "radical feminist, father- hating, closet homo" by one of the people he ruled against. Sounds like a good guy to me! He, Linda Lau, and Ann Schindler (the other Court of Appeals choices) are all perfectly qualified judges running unopposed. Judge Johanna Bender, for the West Electoral District position 1, is qualified and is dedicated to domestic violence issues as well as educating new lawyers. Gavin voted: for all of them.
West Electoral District Judge Position 2: Mark Chow has a long, proven career. His opponent, Phillip Tavel, has a promising career ahead of him, and might be worth supporting in the future, but for now... Gavin voted: Mark C. Chow.
More unopposed: Art Chapman, Eileen Kato, Anne Harper, and Ed McKenna are all well-qualified judges for their positions. Anne Harper even has an election webpage, despite running unopposed. No write-ins needed here. Gavin voted: for all of them.
Seattle Municipal Court, Position 2: Both people running here are qualified for the position. C. Kimi Kondo is facing a challenge from Jon Zimmerman, who claims Kondo is unqualified because of her low ratings in the Bar survey -- which is unscientific and just a place for people to complain. Kondo, meanwhile, wants to improve the court's computer system out of DOS. Gavin voted: C. Kimi Kondo.
A few more unopposed: Steve Rosen, Judith Montgomery Hightower, Willie Gregory, and Karen Donohue are all perfectly qualified for their judge positions. They're all incumbents, and there's no challenge or reason to vote against them. Gavin voted: for all of them.
Seattle Municipal Court Position 7: The incumbent, Fred Bonner, has had a long history on the bench, but he seems to be falling down on the job lately, failing to attend meetings, etc. (He even has a minor scandal at the moment of parking his car in the carpool-only parking area.) His challenger, Damon Shadid, is running on a platform of assuring that poor and underserved communities receive fair treatment under the law, and he's focused and dedicated. Gavin voted: Damon Shadid.
Seattle Prop 1A and 1B: Oh, man. The fact that these two things are up against each other in this way... well, the Stranger summed it up when they said, "It's a long story, and the short of it is that everyone's terrible." Okay, so first pick if we want either one of them to pass, and then, if that passes, we pick which one we want. This deals with early childhood education, which is important; that's a no-brainer to support as a concept.
Then we have to figure out which one we want. 1A wants better pay and training for childcare workers. 1B wants free and reduced-cost preschools for poor kids in Seattle. And we can only have one. Dammit. In the end, I've got to go with the one that puts a better investment into the future. Gavin voted: Yes, 1B.
Seattle Citizen Petition 1: Woo! Monorail! ...oh, wait. This isn't to build a monorail? It's just to spend a lot of money to study the possibility of the monorail? And... wait, you couldn't even write a statement for the voter's guide? And it's not integrated into existing plans? And it would compete with existing public transit funds? And the person who wrote the initiative would get the money for the "study"?... yeah, this is more than a little shady to me. Gavin voted: No.
Seattle Transportation Benefit Proposition 1: Should we start funding transit better around Seattle? Is this even a question? I mean, the source for funding is obnoxious -- a sales tax -- and we've got to start finding better ways to pay for this sort of thing. But "should we fund public transit at reasonable levels?" isn't even really a debate worth having. The answer is obvious. Gavin voted: Yes.
There we go! That's how I voted this year!