When Seattle City Council Member Tammy Morales announced her resignation last Wednesday, Southeast Seattle did not just lose a longtime, battle-tested representative—we are once again being punished for daring to elect a leader who fought fiercely for our community’s interests.
As residents and workers of Southeast Seattle, we share the generational traumas and daily realities of living our lives in historically oppressed, redlined, and underinvested working-class neighborhoods. These struggles shape our politics—it’s why we twice elected Tammy Morales to champion progressive policies and investments our communities desperately need. With so many Black and brown communities concentrated in District 2, Morales understood the need to center racial equity, prioritize authentic community engagement, and repair the harm that has been inflicted upon our communities.
We hold a deep knowledge of the history and patterns of leadership failing our region—and, in turn, how institutions have failed the leaders we’ve chosen to represent us. When we read Councilmember Morales’s statement to our district describing a culture of mismanagement, harassment, and intimidation, we were angered but not shocked. While her council peers' erosion of trust and co-governance was deeply concerning, we were especially outraged by the treatment she endured from her colleagues.
Let us be clear: Morales is not abandoning her constituents. Like anyone facing a hostile work environment, she is stepping away from a position that has subjected her to intense harassment and hindered her ability to serve our district effectively.
Rather than being angry at Morales for choosing to step away from a hostile environment, our district directs its disappointment toward the institution that fostered this hostility. We recognize the troubling reality: her colleagues have intentionally pushed out a woman of color who represents the city’s only minority-majority district. Her resignation is not merely a reflection of her colleagues’ failure to co-govern but part of a broader pattern of institutional racism that perpetuates abuse against Black and brown leaders striving to uplift the needs and voices of our neighborhoods.
A Tale of Two Legislatures
Morales' treatment on the council dais highlights the toxic culture that once pushed former 37th LD State Representative Kirsten Harris-Talley out of the state legislature. This culture, marked by centralized control, suppression of dissent, and a lack of integrity, prioritizes ineffective power dynamics over meaningful change and democratic processes.
As constituents who elected these leaders, we saw clear parallels between our current council member's experiences in governance and those of our former state representative. In a letter to her district published in the South Seattle Emerald, Harris-Talley described her experience of being marginalized: “When you ask an unpopular question, it is dismissed or ignored. When you use the tools you have, you are cautioned that ‘we don't do it that way here.’ When you speak up against leadership or voice dissent, you are silenced or shamed into getting in line.”
We witnessed these connections firsthand when council members, including Maritza Rivera criticized Morales for sending out an action alert regarding the former’s attempt to freeze funding for the highly popular Economic Development Initiative [EDI]. Another example occurred when Morales broke from her colleagues to defend EDI legislation, which funds numerous organizations serving Southeast Seattle.
Other examples of harm extend to the highest authority on the council. Harris-Talley’s callout of how unpopular questions go dismissed—or even punished—reminded us of when Council President Sara Nelson shut down Morales for raising legitimate concerns around the legality of postponing making a decision on whether or not to place I-137, a ballot initiative creating a sustainable revenue source for our city’s Social Housing Developer, on the agenda.
Even in the hostile environment of the state legislature, Harris-Talley found allies and friends among her fellow representatives and senators who were willing to collaborate and work toward shared goals for the state. However, this kind of support was not extended to Morales, who found herself isolated in a conservative council majority. As Erica Barnett noted in an interview with Publicola, “What did surprise [Morales], she said, was how few of [her colleagues] showed any interest in working with her at all.” By refusing to collaborate with our council member, the council made it clear that they were also refusing to listen to the voices of District 2.
From City to County
The hostile behavior we've witnessed from Morales' colleagues has been fueled by a culture that allows harm to be enacted without consequences. This council presents itself as a pragmatic legislative body focused on efficiency and productivity, even if it comes at the expense of integrity. Hostility is further enabled when those in power engage in harmful actions, such as when Council President Nelson intentionally skipped a committee meeting to campaign for Morales' opponent, making direct attacks on our council member instead of serving the city.
The pattern of people outside our community feeling empowered to directly attack our leaders when they cannot defend themselves or address the harm is not unique to the dynamic between Morales and President Nelson. It echoes the experience of another council member representing Southeast Seattle—Girmay Zahilay—who was targeted by a racist mailer sent out by his former colleague, Kathy Lambert, through her district.
At the county level, however, consequences were swift. Lambert was stripped of all her committee assignments, significantly reducing her role on the council. Community members called for her resignation. While she lost her re-election bid, voices from our district quickly pointed out that the county council's actions fell short of the accountability needed to restore trust in the institution. Our county leadership should never tolerate such blatant abuse—and neither should our city.
If anyone is looking for an indication of how President Nelson would handle such a scandal, we can point to how she has empowered, enabled, and actively participated in open hostility toward Morales. Even half-measures of justice appear to be completely out of the question.
In Plain Sight
It’s clear to our district that the other council members on the dais are directly complicit in upholding these patterns of institutional abuse against leaders from our region—and they haven’t tried to hide it. As Barnett wrote, “The vilification has often been open and explicit.”
Instead of respecting Morales as a fellow colleague, the senior-most council member, and a representative of over one hundred thousand residents, this council has repeatedly chosen to dehumanize her by solely portraying her as a symbol of the previous council. This was evident when council newcomers like Robert Kettle took every opportunity to criticize the previous council in Morales’ presence, collectively dismissing her predecessors as incapable of governance and undeserving of respect or accreditation.
As a community of both generational and current victims of harm, we understand that when someone speaks out about abuse, the first step is to listen without judgment. We recognize that there is no such thing as a "perfect" victim, and that every interpersonal situation carries nuance. However, we were particularly enraged by the comments made by Council Member Rob Saka in response to Morales’ resignation letter. Saka dismissed our council member’s serious concerns about her treatment and the council’s erosion of checks and balances as merely "harsh rhetoric and divisive politics."
Saka’s words are a stark reminder of how victims of abuse are often dismissed in their concerns or minimized as agitators rather than having genuine grievances. Whether it be one singular person or a whole community of people, there is no perfect way to call out harm to those who perpetuate it: their preferred alternative is silence.
Council President Nelson, as the leader of the council, has the direct responsibility of engaging with and repairing interpersonal harm between council colleagues. This responsibility has been handily abandoned by the council president, and much like how her policy positions are clearly at odds with the interests of the voters who elected her, President Nelson’s official conduct as the leader of the legislative department is inflammatory and unrepresentative of the democracy it represents.
Nelson has cut off comments and oversaw the arrest of vocal community members, questioned the intelligence of voters, and needlessly fired the Head of Central Staff who worked on both progressive and conservative councils. Morales, in her letter to our district, named serious concerns about public trust in the institution of the council—a dangerous trend we as her constituents strongly affirm to be true.
Given the hostile environment fostered by Nelson and other council members, it is undeniable that the abuse, isolation, and exclusion experienced by Councilmember Morales may have influenced the votes, behavior, or decision-making of other council members or staff at City Hall.
The resignation letter on Council President Nelson’s desk is not an isolated failure of her leadership—but rather representative of the core theme of how she governs in city politics: intimidation, exclusion, and harassment of anyone who dissents.
So, What’s Next? Who is Next?
The next person to represent Southeast Seattle on the council will have big shoes to fill and even greater challenges to confront. It’s clear that the council majority has little interest in passing progressive policies that will bring investment into our district. We cannot afford another ineffective council member who simply follows the majority’s flawed approach of silencing the voices of Seattleites who are most distant from justice.
An example to follow is newly inaugurated council member Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who represents our community as a citywide council member. In her inaugural speech this past Tuesday, she pledged to make her citywide seat a “people’s office.” Beyond the rhetoric, she committed to collaborating with all council members, pursuing progressive revenue streams to address budget deficits, seeking nonviolent alternatives for crisis response, and defending Seattle from a potential second Trump presidency. These are leadership qualities and policy positions that reflect Morales’ work on the council. Thanks to Rinck, the over one hundred thousand residents in our district can rest assured we will not be left fully unrepresented.
In writing this collective response, we acknowledge the unfortunate reality that if our longtime representative struggled to find collaborators within the council majority, the successor we seek will likely face similar challenges. A District 2 neighbor who rises to the challenge of representing us will need to accept that success won’t come from passing legislation alone—it will come from staying steadfast in our values and purpose. Our new council member must be accountable to a movement that empowers Black and brown working families in our district, and must go beyond accountability to actively grow and harness a popular movement. If we hope to see the interests of working families reclaim the council majority in 2027, we need leaders who can energize and mobilize the working people of District 2.
Any measure of justice can only be achieved if there is comprehensive change in how the council operates not just as a legislative body, but as a body of people. The leadership that is complicit in creating the hostile environment that led our council member to resign is not the leadership that will welcome the next council member we elect. This council needs to engage in comprehensive self-reflection, and only then can they regroup in a formation that will best address the lack of a co-governing relationship.
As residents of District 2, our voice represents a vast, diverse, multiracial, pan-ethnic, and intergenerational community—identities that have historically and continue to be marginalized, and will likely face even greater challenges under the coming presidency. How can our district maintain trust in our democratic process when our elected leaders are met with relentless opposition and harassment rooted in institutional abuse?
This question can only be answered by those in positions of institutional power. But regardless of who represents us in government, it is our responsibility as neighbors to continue organizing to keep ourselves safe.
Alongside the constituents of District 2 who co-authored this op-ed, the following community organizations also co-sign their support: The Washington Bus, WA Community Action Network, Whose Streets? Our Streets!, and the Seattle Students Union.
Bailey Medilo is the Digital & Communications Organizer at the Washington Bus and a member of Anakbayan South Seattle. They live in the Rainier Valley.
Anh Nguyen is a University of Washington Student. They live in Rainier Beach.
Oliver Miska is the Director of Policy at Washington Ethnic Studies Now. They live in Columbia City.
Maria Abando is an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in the Chinatown/International District.
KL Shannon is the Vice Chair of the Seattle MLK Jr. Organizing Coalition and an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in Othello.
Wes Stewart is a community organizer. They live in Columbia City.
Emma Catague is a gender-based violence organizer, former Seattle Community Police Commission Co-Chair, and founding mother of API Chaya. They live in Columbia City.
Clara Cantor is an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in the Rainier Valley.
Emijah Smith is a community organizer. They live in Southeast Seattle.
