From the Jun 14 – Jun 20, 2001 issue

News

Five to Four

If You Can't Say Something Nice...

by Josh Feit

Suppose someone I know thinks it's unacceptable that city hall incumbents like Richard Conlin are not being challenged this election year. Suppose this someone thought Conlin deserved to be knocked out of office because of his lousy voting record (yes on the noise ordinance; no on amending Sidran's parks exclusion ordinance; yes on upping campaign contribution limits; yes on gutting the monorail).

Shockingly, according to city rules, this potential challenger's most widely distributed campaign message--his Voters Pamphlet statement to 285,000 voters--cannot address Conlin's voting record. City code 2.14.060 C says, "A candidate's campaign statements shall not discuss the opponent." Normal cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland do not regulate candidate speech this way.

Seattle is so embarrassing. In 1997, for example, the Ethics and Elections Commission made mayoral candidate Charlie Chong change his Video Voters' Guide statement--demanding that Chong edit out a comparison between himself and Paul Schell.

"That is the government seeking to dictate the content of the political statement a candidate might be interested in writing," says Jerry Sheehan of the local ACLU office.

Free speech isn't the only issue at play. Regulating the content of voters' guide materials is also a way to protect incumbents.

"Somebody running for mayor may want to talk about the problems they see with this mayor," says ACLU director Doug Honig. "It's ridiculous for the government to tell them they can't talk about that, when maybe that's their biggest motivation for running."

In some cases it would be downright irresponsible not to mention the incumbent. "What if you are running against a person because of their misdeeds?" Sheehan asks. "...Misdeeds that have been adjudicated. You couldn't even say that your opponent has been found guilty of misconduct."

So, last week, at a June 6 Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission board meeting, the ACLU of Washington proposed repealing the restrictive (um, unconstitutional) guideline. The idea got voted down 3-1. Ethics commissioner Patrick Dobel, a University of Washington professor of public affairs, led the vote against the repeal. Dobel says, "Most modern politics is about using the media to attack others and personalize campaigns. It is the most common reason why voters turn off elections... candidates [should be] encouraged to focus on their own beliefs and policies. The Voters Pamphlet is one of the very few opportunities to do this. I see it as part of ensuring that somewhere civic deliberation occurs." Thanks, Mom.

The only way to topple the unconstitutional rule, it seems now, is to run for office, write about your opponent in your Voters Pamphlet statement, and challenge the elections commission in court when it asks you to leave your statement on the editing room floor. The ACLU says it will pounce on the case.

josh@thestranger.com