AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to make the office of King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; adding a new Section 649 to the King County Charter; amending Section 680.10 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the qualified voters of the county for their approval or rejection at the next general election occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.
Thank you so much. We'll now move on to item number five. This is a charter amendment and this is charter amendment number 2016 0044. And it would be to make the office of the King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan and provide for filling vacancies in that office in the same manner as vacancies in other nonpartisan county elected offices . Mr. Wagner, did you want to make some beginning comments? No, Madam Chair. I gave a staff report at the committee's last meeting, and I don't have anything to add unless there are any questions. Okay. So we did have the presentation, like you said, two weeks ago, and we had our prosecutor speak. We had a member of the legal staff for the county. Answer some questions. So today we are ready potentially to take the vote. And so I am open for somebody to put this before us. Councilmember Gossett, would you be willing to put this before us? Okay. When you say but this before. Or since 2016 0044. Okay. I'd like to know that we had ordinance 2016 0044 or four. And as Councilmember Lambert said, we had a very robust discussion on this issue at our last meeting. But, Councilman Lambert, I think that it would be helpful to members if the staff or somebody kind of indicates and reiterates what the issue is, because we have a different listening audience today and then recommend that we vote. But I'm putting that before us now. Okay. So you want to give us like two sentences or a very brief rendition again, of what this does? Sure. There are basically two two effects of this amendment. One is that currently for Partizan offices, each candidate's party preference is listed on the ballot. If the if the candidate so requests or each candidate's party preference is listed. If this office were made nonpartisan. That would not be permitted. So each candidate's name would be on the ballot. But there would be no indication of party preference, party endorsement or anything like that. The second effect has to do with the way in which vacancies in the office are filled for a partizan office. The the council is required to choose someone to fill the vacancy from among. First of all, it has to be someone from the same political party as the person who previously occupied the office. And the replacement has to be chosen from among three persons nominated by the County Central Committee of that party. For nonpartisan officers, that is not the case. It's entirely up to the council's discretion who to choose to fill a vacancy. Those are the main differences. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to urge members to vote for this measure and remind or reinforce the fact that what we're doing is presenting an amendment to our charter or our county constitution that would essentially make put the King County prosecuting attorney in the same state as of every other elected official here in King County . And that is make him nonpartisan. I believe that the majority of people in the community who are eligible to vote will come out and vote and vote positively for this measure, because it's a progressive measure that I think will serve the community really well. Lastly, I mentioned this last meeting, but I'd like to mention that again, I think it is particularly beneficial to African-American and other people of color communities who have the perception, rightly or wrongly, here in Seattle and King County, as well as and just about every other urban area across the nation that, if they are at the prosecutor , is have a party, they will like Republicans and that he or she is going to think a certain way or if he or she is a Democrat, that that he or she is going to think a certain way. And that certainly is not always been the case. And I mentioned that our last meeting, there are lot the two prosecutors that I worked under have been very responsive and accountable to all of our people, all of our communities, not always in a way that I would like. But I think taken as a whole, they've been very responsive. And I mentioned a damn saddleback in particular, where some of the most challenging cases, those dealing with three strikes, has shown significant insight has been beneficial. And I just think that this measure is important and that this is the time to pass it. And I hope the members will join me in putting this on the ballot this fall for our voters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I'm sorry to see you here, Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll have a charter review in two years overseen by the King County Charter Review Commission. And that would seem to me a good timeline to have this conversation about making this charter change. I would also point out that all the all 39 counties in the state have a partizan election for their prosecuting attorney . And therefore, I'm going to oppose this today and ask members to join me in voting no. We can take this conversation up as part of the charter review in two years. But I also want to be very clear that my vote today is in no way a reflection on the excellent work that Mr. Sandberg does every day in this office and has brought some very innovative programs and to the office, and I commend his work highly. It is not at all a personal reflection, but a concern about when best to have this conversation. Councilmember WG So I also had some questions about the timing. And Nick, maybe you can help me out here. How long has this office been? Partizan Since 2008. The press. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Not sorry. I was thinking of a different question. I'm not sure the answer to that question. But as long as we can. Remember, at least 50. Years. Okay. And these positions have been nonpartizan since the vote in 2008. That's what you were thinking, right? And so the next regular vote is in two years, is that correct? That's what actually the county charter requires the executive to appoint a charter commission every at least every ten years. And the ten years is up in January of next year. By January of next year. Right. I'm just kind of wondering why that is. So if we're going to start looking at charter changes in January of next year, why are we doing this particular charter change now? Because I'll tell you, when we first arrived here and I was sworn in, I was and then I was given my notebook full of the charter and all the information. I noticed that it referred to the the office of councilman. Right. And I'm not a councilman. I'm a council member. So I thought, okay, that seems like a fairly easy thing. We should just change it. And I talked to staff and so we should just change that because it's obviously out of date. And I was told, well, yeah, but we will take it up at the next charter change and that makes sense to me. And so I just sort of held back on making that change, which is admittedly less substantive than what we're talking about here. But why take this one up now? What's the what's the the impact of taking it now versus waiting until we do the charter as a whole? I think Councilmember Gossett might want to say something. Councilman Gossett. Thank you very much. I would like to respond to councilman about dirty, if I may, Madam Chair. Last year, after discussion with our chair, our councilmen, our fellows, he and I decided to put forth a change in the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight and submit that to the voters for a charter change. And my response is that both what they are and what the prosecuting attorney is in the criminal justice arena, that throughout our nation we've inherited some really difficult times, creating a more solid, open and and and fair relationship between criminal justice officials and oversight entities and the communities, all particularly the African-American communities around the country. And I just think that it's time to lead. We, we think, were successful with all our Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. And I'm just I just think it's time that we should do it with the only nonpartisan elected position in our county that's central to the operations of our criminal justice system. Yesterday, when we were in our Law and Justice Committee, it was pointed out that, you know, in King County, we're about seven times more likely to refer African-American youth to consideration for having charges filed against him or her than we are white youth and other year. And I just want to create the fair environment possible. And not having our prosecutor be partizan is a significant step in that direction is not a revolutionary step, but it's a significant step in the right direction, in my opinion. And I think we should do it now rather than waiting in two years and hope and hopes that the commission would take this issue up. Madam Chair, though, that, in answer to my question, completely remarks. Thank you and then will be followed by Councilmember Van Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Gosset, for your answer. And look, clearly the voters prefer to have these positions be nonpartisan. I mean, I think that's an obvious fact. They've made the council nonpartizan, they've made the executive nonpartisan. In fact, the only remaining partizan position we have here in the county is the prosecuting attorney. So I think it's a matter of, you know, sensible organization of the county and and organizing in a way that the voters support. This proposal makes some sense, but the timing of it to me, I'm not hearing a compelling reason to do it right this minute. I'm not hearing you. Compelling reason not to do it. This minute doesn't cost us anything. There's already going to be a ballot measure it there's always going to be a ballot to go into the general. Right. As you know, in the general election. Is that correct, Nick? Yes. No, but but the idea that that somehow changing the partizan or nonpartizan nature of the prosecutor now would somehow affect people's perception of the fairness of the office. I haven't heard particular problems around the perception of the fairness of this office. In fact, I think this office has a tremendous reputation for fairness and justice. And I also don't see any connection between whether this is a partizan office or a nonpartisan office and the disproportionate referral of African-American youth to the criminal justice system for charges that I just don't see that tie at all. What it is, is it's about how the voters perceive the office when they are casting their vote. And I think, quite honestly, the reason the change is now is because there's an election next year. Let's just be honest with people that that's the reason why we're doing things. I don't necessarily have to stand in the way of it, but I think the claim that there's some big problem we're solving here today, personally, I will admit I voted no on the on the, you know, in my personal ballot on the changes to the partizan nature of this body and the exact elected executive. Because I do think that party affiliation is shorthand that a lot of voters rely on for some types of values that an O candidate brings to the table. However, the voters didn't agree with me. The voters decided to make us nonpartizan. So I'll tell you, I'm torn about whether to support it or not. I think probably this is the wave of the future, regardless of what we do. And and therefore, maybe it's time to get it over with. But I think that we should be open and honest about the fact that we're doing it now because there's an election next year and it's going to be easier. For elections next year. I don't know. I just think, you know, what election. The election for the prosecuting attorney, it's. Not next year. When it 18. Well, then why don't we just wait and do? Okay, well, then I'm going to vote no along with Councilmember McDermott, because I was misinformed. I'm sorry. I was. I misunderstood. So because I think we could wait until we do it along with the rest of the charter update. So I'll step in there for a second and then Councilmember Vaughn. Mike, there are some of them, right? And I go after you. I'm going to pick up. Okay. No, no, no, no. Quite. You've been. Wait. Okay, Councilman, go ahead. Okay. So that's polite people here today. That's okay. You know, when you look at the fact that we are home rule charter and the people have already voted, as Councilmember Balducci said, for having a nonpartisan people representing them. I think that this is consistent with that. You did mention the only remaining office that is not nonpartisan, and I think it's important to do this. The Charter Review Commission takes a year or more. And I think, you know, a lot of people like to have things, you know, not quite so many things on the ballot all at once. So I think it's a good idea to be able to have this brought forward now. And I think the idea that the people who are coming forward, we have with us today a former prosecutor, Chris Bailey. I believe I've been told that Jenny Durkan will also be supporting this. So we have former prosecutors that are supporting this, and I think it's a good time to do this and there's no reason why not to. So Councilmember Caldwell's next. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, you said just about everything I was going to say, but I as I understand, Jenny Durkan, you as former U.S. attorney, will be on will be one of the voices on the ballot in support of this measure. I wrestled with this a lot, too. As I understand, the charter review can take a year, yes, to two years. And so that plays into my decision to support this proposed ordinance. I also believe that of all of the positions that are elected in King County, the prosecutors should certainly not be a partizan office. I mean, there should be nothing partizan about law and justice. And we I think the people of King County would like to know overall would like to know that there are not partizan issues coming up for this office. So although I've wrestled with it, I am going to support the proposed ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And right there. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank customer Raquel Welch for articulating why I'm going to also supported by the privilege of sponsoring the original. Legislation that was eventually passed through initiative to make King County Nonpartizan. We wanted to make this position Nonpartizan, but we were restricted by state law at that time. Council member duties correctly said that the voters have spoken loudly and clearly on this issue in a bipartisan fashion, and I think. That this is an opportunity for us to follow up on what Councilmember. Gossage said. We've been very fortunate in the history of this county to have an incredible number of individuals serving both as prosecuting attorney and also in an office. And they've dealt with issues that have evolved from the original time that we got involved beyond Ferguson in particular, and very sensitive to a number of issues in this region . And we have had prosecutors we've been blessed with who have evolved and responded to the changes that have taken place in King County. And I think if we're going to recognize that the voters of this county wildly called for nonpartizanship, we should finish the job. I don't think we're overwhelmed by work right now. I think we can do some of the work that could precede what the Charter Review Committee is going to review. But I'm prepared today to take action and support with the public guilt by initiative in King County. And I want to thank Councilmember Gossett and Caldwell in particular. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I will. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've been listening carefully to the debate and discussion here with an open mind. And I've had the opportunity to meet with prosecutor Senator Byrd a couple of times on this and, in fact, speak with former prosecutor Bailey at a recent event about it. And, you know, I think my cosmetology torn on it when I was out door belling, you know, people saying, well, is it a Democratic or Republican? They say it's nonpartisan. They say, well, what are you. You know, they kind of want to know your philosophy a little bit. And that party preference, remember, we don't run in this state anymore on a party ticket. You prefer a party. Now, that's a and it's a distinction to preserve our top two primary system. But I think it does give a little information. And the staff report pointed this out to the voter, at least an initial clue. And most folks still, I think, vote the person, not necessarily the party, and will do further investigation if they're interested. I appreciate the arguments about wanting to not have justice be a partizan issue, but I don't think stating a partizan preference brings partizanship into the administration of justice. I just don't. And I know I've certainly not seen that in Prosecutor Söderberg nor his predecessor, Mr. Mailing in Mr. Mailings predecessor Mr. Bailey wrote a terrific book addressing some of the history of the office. But I do think that the prosecutor's political philosophy matters and the parties matter a little bit, whether you're for or against the death penalty. Whether you are more in favor of sentencing reform initiatives, diversion initiatives. Our prosecutors led, frankly, by example with the programs like Lead and 180 and has really been a leader on these issues. And as Councilmember Garcia points out, is looked back at some three strikes cases where you felt justice in the in hindsight was not ultimately served and has gone and petitioned the clemency board to do justice. And so I have the highest degree of respect for Mr. Chabot. That's not what this issue, in my view, is about. But I don't think taking off the label eliminates Partizanship. And I think, in fact, you can see it right now in our state Supreme Court races where they are nonpartisan, but there are three challengers to three sitting incumbents. And to be quite blunt, there is a partizan bent to those challenges. There's been some frustration that some of, I think, are more conservative friends about some of the rulings of the court. And and I believe that generally one political party is supporting some challengers. I mean, I'm just being candid that taking off a partizan label doesn't take politics out of politics. So I don't think that that argument here is a compelling one necessarily. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do this or that the voters want do, but I don't I'm not convinced by that argument. On the process, it is true that we have sent charter review amendments to voters out of the regular cycle. We did that last year and cast member Lambert's point that sometimes there's value in not overwhelming voters, which I remember I think is a good one. In this case. I'm surprised that kind of the lack of input we've received. I think one of the values you get from a charter review process is you have the Municipal League and the League of Women Voters and civic leaders come together and debate in a robust way these issues of governance, structure and what reforms should be undertaken. And we could have had a little bit more of that here in the process. I did some of my own research. I reached out, talked to people I trust like Hugh Spitzer. He's the kind of an expert on Washington constitutional law. And I don't think he would mind me saying he agrees with the prosecutor that this should be nonpartisan. So I would have liked to had a little more input on it. And to be honest, I'm still torn on on what to do here. But I want to share my my thinking on it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Well, I agree with you also. He's true. And I don't think that whether you're for or against diversion as any relations, whether you're already I know others and I know does that agree with that? So and I do know that the book that Chris Bailey wrote talked about a time when there was Partizan ism in the office. And as citizens get the opportunity to vote on this, hopefully this year they will have plenty of opportunities to read more about it and to properly vetted. So with that, the clerk, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Customer of duty. Now, Councilmember Dombrowski. No. Councilmember Dunn by. Councilmember Gossett, I recall. Well, Councilmember McDermott. No. Councilmember of the Girl Council member. But I know. Quickly. I'm sorry. Captain. Until it was on the farm. Yeah, he's on the phone, but he can't vote and. Yeah, it's not recorded. Yeah, understating my preference. Councilmember. I. Madam Chair, I am sure the voters by those three, those that's voting no are council members duty Dombrowski, McDermott and council member of the Rivers excuse. Thank you very much with that. The motion has passed ordinance just passed charter amendment. And is there any objection to expediting it to this week? It will not be on consent, obviously. Is there. Needed for. That? Well, we need to have it done before the end of the month in order to get it on the ballot. So I think since we've had the conversations there. Like right. Now, I don't it does have to be on the you know, to take final action before the end of this month, but before the August recess. Oh, okay. I thought it was the end of this month, not the end of July. Okay, well, then it doesn't matter. Okay, well, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. And thank you very much for your being here today, both of you. All right. That means is item number six and make it by paperwork here. Item number six is proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. This is one we've been talking about for a number of time. This will not be voted on today.