Prop 1 Serves Neither Voters Nor Taxpayers

Three amendments to the Pierce County charter are proposed this November:

Proposition 1 moves the election of the county executive and council to odd-numbered years by 2015 and increases their term limits from two to three consecutive four-year terms.

Proposition 2 moves the election of auditor, assessor-treasurer and sheriff to odd-numbered years by 2015.

Proposition 3 eliminates ranked-choice voting and restores the primary and general election system for all county elected offices.

The News Tribune columnist Peter Callaghan has commented on the voters’ pamphlet statements for and against these measures.

Then, Sherry Bockwinkel and Kelly Haughton went to court with a lawsuit to challenge ballot language of all three propositions, based upon:

• Inadequate public notice to appeal the titles.
• Use of “approve/reject” versus the traditional “yes/no” question.
• Use of an argumentative statement in a ballot title.

It is a surprise that neither their lawsuit nor any other public comment has addressed Proposition 1’s glaring flaw. It has two separate subjects: (1) Term limits, and (2) Odd-year elections.

These distinctly different subjects are connected only by the very loose theme of “the county executive and council.” But the subject purposes are unrelated.

That is, the first does not hinge on the second becoming law.

Giving these politicians an additional four years is not related to moving their elections to odd years.

Because these topics are neither interrelated nor contingent upon one another, they absolutely are “multiple subjects” and do not comply with the single subject rule.

The legal concept of single subject is crucial for elections. Without it, voters may have to accept part of the proposition, which they oppose, in order to obtain a change that they support.

Many of us will have to determine our vote by choosing which subject we feel most strongly about, since there is no way for us to express support of one subject but reject the other.

If there is a rational unification among this fall’s proposition subjects, it is the obvious pairing of odd-year election cycles for the executive and council (part one of Proposition 1) and the auditor, assessor-treasurer and sheriff (Proposition 2).

But county officials did not choose that option. Instead, they appear to have taken a controversial idea (extending terms) and paired it with a more palatable idea (odd-year elections), in order to gain support for an additional term in office.

And it gets worse. If Proposition 1 is rejected and Proposition 2 is approved, the county will be forced to run county elections in both odd and even years.

This, at a time when the county is turning over every rock and stone to balance its budget?

Why has Auditor Jan Shabro remained silent?

So desperate are these financial times, she limited the information available in the voters’ pamphlet in order to reduce printed pages, and she attempted to close polls.

But the council-appointed auditor has remained oddly silent on this matter of Proposition 1, which serves the interest of the council, even while it could significantly increase the costs to the county and burden the election center.

In the end, if Proposition 1 passes, we will learn nothing about the will of the people. It will be impossible to determine the majority’s viewpoint on either subject, since the two subjects are merged into one.

Proposition 1 should never have been put forward to the electorate.

Voters depend on the county’s elected officials to prepare ballots that are fair, clear and unambiguous, and to administer elections which are high-quality and cost-efficient.

By contrast, Proposition 1 is a demonstration of political negotiation and allegiances among incumbents.

It does not serve the interests of voters or taxpayers.