Pierce County Election Results 2009

The results from this year's election in Pierce County had a good Ranked Choice Voting race, but had RCV repealed by the voters.

In the RCV special election for Auditor, Julie Anderson received 49% of the first choices in a three-way race with sitting Auditor Jan Shabro and gladfly Will Baker. Baker came in third place and Anderson went over 50% in the second round. All of this was done in one election with no primary. The only glitch was that the Elections Department put the RCV race on a separate ballot card, thus driving up expenses for the county. But we had more candidates on the ballot in November and we saved the expense of holding a primary.

Unfortunately, there was also a measure on the ballot to repeal RCV in Pierce County. This measure passed by a large majority. It appears as if the Election Department's poor implementation soured the voters on RCV to the point, they did not want to use the system any more.

The Elections Department far over spent on systems implementation and blamed RCV for the high expenses. The Elections Department did not look for ways to leverage the investment in RCV software/hardware and thus ended up costing the county more money. The Elections Department did a poor job of educating the voters as to the benefits of RCV in terms of more candidates in November and eliminating the primary. The Elections Department understaffed the polls in 2008 and blamed the long lines at the polls on RCV.

We are disappointed especially since Anderson would have worked hard to reduce expenses and educate the voters on the benefits. Having an Auditor who wanted to make RCV work would have been a real benefit to the voters.

We want to thank everyone who supported the campaign to keep RCV in Pierce County. Your support was wonderful.

On a related front, charter amendments to extend the term limits of members of the County Council from two terms to three terms and to move the election of various county level offices from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years appear to both be failing. The failure of these two amendments, interestingly, will result in some competitive races for county council in 2010 since all three county council members who terms are expiring then will be term limited out of office.

Official Top 2 Results Unavailable Until Final Certification

ALL of the results released on election night are unofficial. In fact, ALL results are unofficial until election certification.

On October 26, 2009, the Auditor's office released to the media its "General Elections Results Reporting Schedule". In the release, the Auditor's office reports that at 8:30 pm on Tuesday, November 3, they will put out results based on "absentees processed through Election Day and unofficial Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) algorithm results."

Why does the Auditor's office repeatedly refer to the RCV results as unofficial, but not the Top 2 results? She is striving to make it look like it takes longer to determine the winner of a RCV race than a Top 2 race. But this is NOT TRUE.

The Auditor's office will be releasing preliminary results based on the ballots counted through the end of each day. There will be preliminary results for the Top 2 races as well as the RCV race. ALL of these results (RCV or Top 2) will be unofficial until final certification. With some races, we will be able to safely guess who the winner will be before all of the votes are counted. In other races, we will need to count all of the votes before we know who wins. But regardless, none of the results (RCV or Top 2) are official until final certification.

Some races (both RCV and Top 2) are too close to call on election night. Indeed, the RCV race for Auditor this year just might be one of those. But the Top 2 race for Mayor of Tacoma may well be such a race as well.

Since RCV races are more likely to be competitive, they are more likely to be too close to call on election night. Competitive elections are a good thing. Uncontested Top 1 races are a bad thing, but the results are known before election night.

Some races are landslides. The RCV race for Sheriff last year was a landslide and we all knew who the winner was going to be at the first release of results. Uncontested races, such as about half of the Top 2 races in Pierce County, are always landslides. This does not make them good elections.

Bad Ballot Design Costs Taxpayers and Voters in Pierce County

The Pierce County Elections Department sent out ballots to voters this past weekend. Due to poor ballot design, voters received two ballot cards with much wasted space. Using two ballot cards drove up the expense of the fall general election by $600,000 in printing, postage and paper costs. It also drives up the return postage cost to voters from a regular stamp to "approximately" $0.61. This poor design appears to be politically motivated by Auditor Jan Shabro.

Shabro wants to repeal Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and blames RCV for having to use two ballot cards. She then allocates all of the cost of going to two ballot cards to RCV.

Shabro was so intent on discrediting RCV that she designed a ballot with blank sides and empty columns. Meanwhile, she proposed other cost savings measures such as closing the polls and reducing the number of words her opponents received in the voters’ pamphlet. These measures provided a small fraction of the savings possible by better ballot design.

If her department had done a better job of designing the ballot, it would have fit all into one card. But then the Auditor would not have been able to complain about the cost of RCV. In fact, she would have been forced to admit that RCV saved money relative to the Top 2 in 2009.

Good ballot design and cost savings should come before political motivations.

Julie Anderson - First Choice for Auditor

In the special election for Pierce County Auditor, our first choice is Julie Anderson, second choice is Jan Shabro and third choice is Will Baker.

Julie Anderson, current Deputy Mayor of Tacoma, has promised to manage expenses aggressively, cutting down on election expenses in particular. We like Anderson's experience and can do approach to the job. Anderson is our first choice. Jan Shabro, the current Auditor, has done such a poor job of managing expenses in her brief time in office that we can only list her as the second choice. Will Baker is a perennial candidate who would be a disaster as an Auditor. He, therefore, is our last choice.

Yesterday, I received my ballot for this election in the mail. There were two ballot cards in the package, both with huge amounts of wasted space. Of course, there were big unnecessary printing, postage and paper expenses associated with this ballot design. These large expenses were incurred while the Auditor's office was focused on relatively small expense reductions associated with reducing the number of words in the candidate statements and closing the polls. Shabro's poor leadership on this issue means she can not be our first choice.

Fortunately, Anderson is advocating aggressively managing vendor expenses to save money for the county. Anderson is also more willing to accept ideas from experts outside of her own group of associates. Searching more broadly for ideas on how to save money is generally going to allow you to accomplish this task more effectively. We enthusiastically endorse Julie Anderson as our first choice.

Propaganda to remain on ballot

The committees appointed by the County Council on August 18 to write the voters pamphlet statements against proposed charter amendments 1 and 3 have pointed out to the Pierce County Auditor and the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's office that the ballot titles contain prejudicial language and are not consistent with past practice for ballot titles for charter amendments. The Auditor's office does not want to discuss the issue with the committees and is moving forward with using the prejudicial ballot titles.

Closed County Process

The state process for ballot measures is for the Attorney General's office to consult with the pro and con committees BEFORE writing the ballot title. Not only did the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's office write the ballot titles without consulting the committees, the Auditor and the Prosecuting Attorney's office refused to discuss the ballot titles with the committees outside of court. They informed us that the only way they would discuss the issue was if we sued them. So the committees sued them in Superior Court.

During the lawsuit, the Tacoma News Tribune called the ballot title for amendment 1 "propaganda". This had no visible impact on the Auditor's office or the Prosecuting Attorney's office. They were determined to win the lawsuit based on technicalities, not the merits of the titles.

"Catch 22"

As it turned out, the prejudicial ballot titles were filed by the Prosecuting Attorney's office with the Auditor's office on July 28, three weeks before the committees were even appointed by the County Council. Washington state law requires the Auditor to inform the legislative body which is putting the measure on the ballot and any other interested parties of the filing of the ballot titles.

But there is no process for becoming an interested party. Voicing an interest in becoming a member of a committee to write a voters pamphlet statement or testifying before the County Council on the issue does NOT make one interested in the relevant ballot title, according to the Auditor's office.

The Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Auditor maintained in court there is NO requirement to inform the members of the voters pamphlet statement committees of the filing of the ballot titles or to ever send them copies of the ballot titles. The Auditor's office still has not sent ballot titles to the duly appointed committees. They have not posted the ballot titles on their website. Apparently, they do not view the ballot title of the measure as required reading for voters pamphlet statement committees.

Further, the deadline for challenging the ballot titles was 10 days after the filing. At the state level, this is not an issue since the committees are consulted before the titles are written. But our County Council did not even appoint the committees until after the deadline had passed. According to the Prosecuting Attorney's office, even if the Auditor had informed the committees about the ballot titles upon their appointment, it was too late to challenge.

Prejudicial Language in Ballot Title

The judge acknowledged the Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Auditor were successful in moving the prejudicial ballot titles through the process without anyone noticing by the deadline. During the hearing on the suit, the Prosecuting Attorney's office did not defend the prejudicial language, they only focused on the deadline. Apparently, the office does not care about being prejudicial.

Of course, the Auditor still has the ability to eliminate the offensive language, but she has given no indication of any desire to be impartial or fair. The County Council members want amendments 1, 2 and 3 to pass. Using prejudicial language to help them pass helps the County Council members and they are her friends.

Pierce County and the Port of Tacoma

Last week, Pierce County had three candidates (Julie Anderson, Will Baker, and Jan Shabro) file to run for Auditor, but will save the expense of a primary. The Port of Tacoma, a countywide organization, had three candidates (Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon and Bill Casper) file to run for one of their Port Commission positions and will receive a bill for having a primary...probably around $350,000.

Pierce County is using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect its Auditor. RCV combines the primary and general elections into one election in November. Since the county itself will not participate in the primary, it will not receive a bill for the primary.

The Port of Tacoma has been forced to use a non-partisan Top 2 system to elect its Port Commissioners. Under this system, if more than two candidates file to run for one of the Commissioner positions, the Elections Department will run a primary for the Port and send them a bill for doing so. In 2007, the bill was $327,000. This year it should be slightly more due to fewer jurisdictions sharing the cost of the primary.

The non-partisan Top 2 system penalizes jurisdictions with more candidates and more civic involvement. This is a strange incentive system for political entities. RCV, on average, ends up with more candidates, but does not cost the entity more money for a primary. Using RCV would save the Port significant money which could be used to keep people on the payroll instead of having to lay off as many workers.

Port and Tacoma Schools Should Ask for Cut in Election Expenses

The Port of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District should ask the Pierce County Auditor to use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect their Port Commissioners and School Board members this November and skip the August primary to save money for the workers and the kids. Without a change in elections procedures, the Port will be out about $350,000 and the Tacoma Schools will be billed about $100,000. This is money better spent on workers salaries and supporting kids education.

Pierce County itself will be using RCV to elect its new Auditor. So despite there being three candidates in the Auditor race, there will be no August election for the county. RCV folds the primary and general elections into one election in November. The Port Commissioner Position #1 has three candidates (Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon and Bill Casper) and the Tacoma School Board Position #2 has six candidates (Jerry Thorpe, Catherine Ushka-Hall, Connie Rickman, Amy Bates, Chris Van Vechten, and Deb Blakeslee).

Using the current set of rules, these races will require an election in August for these positions and the Port and School District will be sent bills for holding these elections. If the Port and the School District were to change to RCV, they would not participate in the August election and would not receive a bill for that election.

As soon as possible, the Port Commission and the School Board should petition the Auditor's office to use RCV to elect their officials this year. This would save the Port and School Board important dollars in this difficult financial year which has seen lay-offs throughout the county.

More Lay-offs at the Port?

The game of filing week Top 2 roulette is over and the losers are the Port of Tacoma, the City of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District. The winners included the Metro Parks District and Pierce County itself. The losers had "too many candidates" sign up to run for a position on the Port Commission, the Civil Service Commission or the School Board. The winners had only one or two candidates fill for each of their positions OR are using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect their officials.

In the Top 2 election system used by most local jurisdictions, if more than two candidates sign up to run for a particular office, the corresponding jurisdiction must hold a primary and pay the associated bill. For example, three candidates signed up to run for Port Commissioner, Position 1, so the Port will receive a bill probably between $350,000 and $400,000 for the primary. The Port has to pay a big share of the total bill for the primary since it is a countywide district. If there had been one fewer candidate for this position, the Port's bill for the primary would have been $0.

The county itself will be using RCV to elect the Auditor position. Three candidates signed up to run for Auditor, but since RCV elections fold the primary into the general election, there will be no primary and the County's bill will be $0.

Facing this unforeseen bill, the Port Commission is likely to have to come up with additional lay-offs to cover the bill for the primary. This is quite unfortunate and could be prevented in the future by shifting the election of Commissioners to RCV.

All of this applies to the City of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District as well, but the scale of their problem is smaller. Their bills are more likely in the $80,000-100,000 range. Obviously, these are significant numbers in this day of tight budgets. The Metro Park District will have no primary, so they will not be affected by a bill for the primary.

The current Top 2 system for electing local officials causes districts to want fewer candidates vying for office in order to save money. Obviously, we should prefer systems which encourage more civic engagement, including more candidates running for office. The RCV system used by the county encourages more candidates without the additional cost of a primary. The Port should adopt RCV to elect its commissioners.

Novoselic and Anderson Announce Their Candidacies

Krist Novoselic and Julie Anderson announced their candidacies yesterday.

Novoselic, former bass player for Nirvana and current Chairman of Fairvote, is running for Wahkiahum County Clerk and "prefers Grange Party". Novoselic's candidacy appears to be a protest against the Top 2 system which prevents private associations from controlling the use of their name on the ballot. Novoselic is the Grangemaster of the Gray's River Grange and he has opposed the Grange's support of the Top 2 election system in the state of Washington. Part of the point of Novoselic's candidacy is the lack of ability of the Grange to control who signs up to represent their group on the ballot.

Novoselic prefers the ballot access system embedded in Pierce County's RCV charter provision. This system allows ready access for independents and third party candidates while allowing the parties and other groups to control who uses their name on the ballot.

Anderson, Deputy Mayor of Tacoma, has announced her candidacy for Pierce County Auditor. While the position is non-partisan, Anderson is a well known Democrat and will have the support of the Pierce County Democrats, but she will be working to get the support of others as well. The other candidate in the race so far is Jan Shabro, a well known Republican. Shabro was appointed to replace Pat McCarthy as Auditor earlier this year by the Republican dominated County Council. This should be an interesting race as both candidates are well known politicians in the county.

According to Anderson's website, "I’m running for Auditor because Pierce County deserves fair and practical leadership that is directly accountable to the voters – not political parties. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome with the right mix of pragmatism, imagination and hard work. And there is no government that can function without an informed and engaged citizenry." She will be emphasizing her non-partisan public service as a member of the Tacoma City Council as compared to Shabro's partisan positions.

Who will pay for the August primary this year?

Hint: It won't be Pierce County.

Events of the coming week will make a difference of $300,000+ to the Port of Tacoma's budget. The City of Tacoma may well send people into the Auditor's office to file to run for Port Commissioner and save Tacoma some serious money. While we have never heard of someone doing this, in this time of budgetary problems it wouldn't be surprising. Why?

Let's look at what happened during the last cycle. In 2007, the Port of Tacoma had one Commissioner race where more than two candidates signed up to run. Using their current election system, the Port is required to hold a primary if more than two candidates file for one or more of their Commissioner positions. The result was a $327,000 bill to the Port for the August primary. If there had been no race with three or more candidates, the Port's bill would have been $0.00. This is what the Port is up against.

On the other hand, Pierce County has a race for County Auditor happening this year, and regardless of how many individuals sign up to run in this race with no elected incumbent, their bill for the primary will be $0.00. Why? Because Pierce County will be using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect its Auditor and there is no primary in RCV races regardless of how many candidates sign up.

The total costs of the August 2007 primary in Pierce County were about $850,000. Using the formula prescribed by the state, the Port was billed $327,000. If the Port had not participated in the primary, most of those costs would still have been incurred but they would have been billed to the other jurisdictions who participated in the primary. Most of the $327,000 of cost would have gone to the Tacoma Schools, the Metro Parks District and the City of Tacoma. Probably just under $100,000 each.

This year, the City of Tacoma will have a primary due to the large number of open seats for City Council and Mayor. To control costs, the City will want the Port, the Tacoma School District and the Metro Parks to have primaries as well. The City may well want to consider going into the candidate recruitment mode.

Of course, if all of these entities were using RCV, this would all be moot. None of these entities would be on the hook for expenses in the primary because they would not be participating. Unfortunately, currently state law does not allow local jurisdictions such as the Port to use RCV to elect its Commissioners. So while the County can relax this week about the number of candidates who will be signing up to run for Auditor, the Port will be sweating this one out.

Too bad, the Port is in the position of discouraging people from running for Port Commissioner since it would cost the Port money if "too many" candidates filed. It would be a better system if this anomaly were fixed so that the Port could use RCV to elect its Commissioners.