Either you have decorum or you don't. That's the bare minimum if you want respect from your constituents.

@2: And even in the Stranger’s utterly credulous account, we immediately see a few items which should have received some skeptical inquiries:

“…several area schools paid him more than $12,000 for his assembly appearances in the months of January and February.”

Why would any local schools pay money, let alone that kind of money, to hear from a just-elected, bottom-rung official with no experience?

“He intended to announce the tour to students–not solicit sales–as they would attend as a mandatory, non-ticketed assembly during the school day.”

If the audience’s presence at the event is mandatory, how could there possibly be any need to announce it to them?

“Some elected officials told The Stranger that it is weird for Binda to accept money for public speaking as a public official in general.”

And even after that, the Stranger shows no interest in questioning Binda about this matter — but goes on to repeat his complaints about it being used as basis for a recall.

"Binda told The Stranger those illegal expenditures were honest mistakes. As a first-time candidate, he did not fully understand what he could and could not spend campaign money on."

Binda was utilizing a highly experienced and well-regarded campaign treasurer. This excuse rings hollow.

@5 TS is pretty much reusing their copy for the Sawant recall and doing a global replace for Binda's name.

If he wants to play the racist angle on this one then he should also provide an example of a white politician who advertised for his speaking engagement using a shirtless photo. That's a weird thing to do no matter who you are. What does that remotely have to do with his talk? The tattoo in question is on his bicep so he could have just as easily worn a t-shirt and showed it off. Nevertheless it shows poor judgement but is probably not recall worthy. The lesson learned here is when you elect inexperienced people to public office not because they have shown they are capable of doing the job but because they check some boxes then you shouldn't complain when said representative does or says things that demonstrates their lack of experience. Maybe next time the voters in Lynnwood should chose representatives who are interested more in helping the city than promoting their own brand.

Shirtless photos of a politician? Who does Binda think he is, Vladimir Putin?

I might just get temporary residency in Lynnwood just so I can vote again this clown.

None of this comes even close to recall material to me. Same with Sawant. I'm not saying I would vote for the guy, but folks need to realize that there should be a very high bar for recall, otherwise we end up with politicians afraid to make tough choices. The whole point of a republic is that we trust elected officials to learn the ins and outs of the particular issues, and make tough decisions. Otherwise, we vote on everything. The closest thing we have to that is California, and it has been a fucking disaster. A state that has so much going for it is weighed down by stupid anti-tax measures (prop 13) and stupid anti-crime measures (prop 184). Good going California -- you just created a massive prison-industrial-complex, while simultaneously making sure that the wealthiest amongst you don't pay for it. Unless the citizenry is a lot smarter (which likely won't happen any time soon) we need to push power into the hands of the elected officials.

Which is why we should simply live with this bozo. I don't think it is a good sign that he can't get along with his constituents at the board meetings. So fucking what if they all "have it out for you". A key part of your job is to just be nice at the meetings. That is it. Just show up, listen, make your argument, and at the end of the day go out for drinks or a smoke. You can disagree on every important issue and still be popular. Anyone who has every served on a board is familiar with that phenomenon. You disagree with someone on damn near every issue, but are OK working with them. There is the opposite as well. You agree with someone on every issue, but are constantly rolling your eyes, and trying to rephrase their argument because they are not helping your cause.

Look, the dude is young. He is bound to make stupid mistakes. If he loses in the primary next time, hopefully he will learn from that (although he may whine, and learn nothing). But he sure as fuck shouldn't be recalled. Oh, and at the same time, he is definitely no model for the left.

@11: It’s disappointing to read you still repeating the messaging and framing CM Sawant and the Stranger used in their failed attempt to delegitimize the recall effort.

She had committed all three counts of malfeasance after re-election, so voters in 2019 had no way to hold her accountable for her actions in 2020. That was exactly the situation a recall exists to address — or, more accurately, redress: an official wins re-election, power goes to the official’s head, and abuse of official powers begins.

A sufficient number of voters had signed the recall petitions, and then the recall election was approved by no fewer than TEN judges — including the entirety of Washington state’s Supreme Court! If all that did not suffice for you, then what “very high bar” do you need? What, in your mind, would justify a recall election?

Meanwhile a sitting Rightwing SCOTUS justice has 25 years of homes, vacations, businesses and hundreds of thousands of dollars in other undisclosed “gifts” from interested parties with cases before the bench… and yet not a peep from these people about that.

@14 maybe you should reach out to the voters in Lynwood to start the recall process on Thomas. I had no idea they had that much power up there. Don’t you live to get on people about whataboutism?

@15: Touché!

The most disturbing thing about this story is one black man behaving badly all of a sudden makes this a race issue. If Josh Binda were white this wouldn't be in the news and there wouldn't be a vailed demagoguery of all white dudes.

@17: Absolutely!

It’s probably worth mentioning here that both April Berg and John Lovick are Black. April Berg is the first Black woman to represent her district and John Lovick was the first Black person to be an elected sheriff and the first Black county executive in Snohomish County. They’re the only two Black members of the Legislature from Snohomish County. In my opinion they’re both really important figures in the political history of the state.

People who are highly aware of legislative politics know this. But the Stranger leaves that out of this article when it details King and Lovick’s criticism of Binda, other than a very brief aside about King’s kid being in BSU. Why?

"They’re the only two Black members of the Legislature from Snohomish County. "

Brandy Donaghy, April Berg's seatmate in the House, would like to introduce herself. Strange but true, the 44th District's entire delegation is African American.

The Sawant recall campaign can fairly and accurately be described as both "racist" and "right wing" because it was infused with known, identified Trump supporters (and their money) whom the campaign foolishly refused to disavow -- even though doing so publicly would have almost surely won them the election. The Binda haters should take a lesson from that fiasco, though I doubt they will.

@21: So, every Trump supporter, even those who reside in Seattle’s District 3, is a racist? A near-majority of voters in District 3 were “racist” and “right-wing”? Words have meanings, and using real words to smear fellow citizens attacks the common meanings of words. CM Sawant labeled her fellow citizens of District 3 “racist” and “right-wing” because she refused to engage their criticisms of her; when she had engaged those criticisms, in court, she’d lost — completely and swiftly, every time.

Assume for a moment the Recall Sawant campaign had accepted the fool’s burden, wasting time and energy during the campaign to scrub every ‘offensive’ dollar from their coffers, returning each and every one to those citizens of District 3 who, you claim, should not so participate in our democracy. Would that have caused CM Sawant to engage her critics? Please, spare us; she would simply have manufactured another fake “reason” they opposed her, as the Stranger has here.

(Oh, and finally: where does Socialist Alternative get their money? Pay no attention to that little question, because they’re not going to tell you anyway.)

@21 expanding on @22's point, 40% of the contributions (by dollar) to the Recall Sawant campaign came from within D3. https://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/elections/charts.aspx?cycle=2021&n1=contributions&n2=district&n3=ballotissues&n4=ballotissue&n5=campaign737&n6=amount

In contrast, just 24% of the Sawant Solidarity contributions came from within D3, with most of the funding coming from out of state. https://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/elections/charts.aspx?cycle=2021&n1=contributions&n2=district&n3=ballotissues&n4=ballotissue&n5=campaign740&n6=amount

If, as you contend, the Sawant recall was driven by racist, right-wing ideology, then it has to be true that a significant portion of the electorate in D3 is fairly described as racist and right-wing. However, even the most cursory analysis of precinct-level voting data from the past decade's election cycles indicates most D3 voters reject racist, right-wing candidates.

Why would these racist right-wing D3 voters support progressive candidates in all other state and federal elections, saving up their racism and right-wing ideology for an attempt to remove a city council member with essentially no meaningful legislative accomplishments? Your theory doesn't really add up for me.

I agree with skidmark on April 24, 2023 at 6:55 PM. This young man needs, regardless of if he thinks so or not, a mentor and guidance. It's not a bad thing, a sign of weakness or incompetence; quite the contrary. He's young and doesn't know a lot of things or have the life experiences yet. Just like a lot of us at that age.
I hope he has positive and influential mentors and I hope the two Black politicians that were quoted in this article have reached out and offered their wisdom and guidance to this young person. In addition to keeping him in their protective circle.
That's what elders do, that what the village does.

@20 -- there's a certain irony that Donaghy -- who I obviously brain farted about -- took John Lovick's old seat, which he vacated to take Steve Hobbs' old seat in the Senate. Who is responsible as SoS for the following website providing the history of Black legislators in WA that doesn't have Donaghy on it when it should? Steve Hobbs!

washstatelib.libguides.com/c.php?g=1204829

@22 Yes to your first question, no to your second one. Many people didn't like Sawant for reasons that had nothing to do with ideology or racial animus. But the fact is there was a clearly identifiable far-right element in the recall campaign that its leadership should have disavowed. If they were paying a professional consultant, he or she failed them by not insisting on this. In an election as razor-close as that one was, a public renunciation of right-wing support -- including the return of known Trump contributors' donations -- almost surely would have tipped the results in their favor, no matter how Sawant might have responded.

@26: The issue driving recall was the incumbent’s multiple acts of malfeasance in office. Yes, she desperately wanted to shift that conversation, from her own freely-chosen behaviors, to personal attacks upon anyone who dared criticize her for her multiple abuses of her official powers. For some reason you still can’t see what a fundamentally dishonest response this was, and why you should not have fallen for it. Instead, you just keep repeating as fact your groundless speculation about what might have happened. It should be obvious there was no way for them to comply, even though you keep saying they could; Sawant would always call her critics “racist,” and “right-wing,” and the Stranger would always obediently parrot her hate-filled personal attacks.

CM Sawant, like every other elected official in the history of the United States, swore or affirmed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Yet we can easily imagine how a few — or even more than a few — of her supporters want our constitution overthrown, by violence if they deem it so necessary. Somehow she was never asked to identify and exclude each and every one of these supporters, even though accepting their support violated her oath or affirmation of office. Why this double standard?

@27 No, you still don't get it. What I'm describing is purely a tactical mistake. It has nothing to do with what's "fair" or anyone's "standards" or any question of honesty in campaigning or reportage by anyone. Maybe you haven't yet noticed, but politics is never fair! The 3rd is a self-consciously progressive district full of voters who, while they may not like Sawant, can be presumed to despise Trump with far more intensity and don't want to support anything they perceive as Trump-adjacent. This perception, which Sawant deliberately fed, clearly hurt the recall campaign. (Love her or hate her, she knows what works in her district.) Was that fair? Perhaps not, but again, that's entirely beside the point.

Any campaign consultant worthy of the name would've advised the recall campaign to match their list of contributors to that of Trump's 2020 presidential campaign committee and return the donations from those who showed up on both. It's not rocket science -- these are easily accessible public records. A big, splashy public announcement that this had been done would have gone a long way toward countering Sawant's accusation of right-wing influence on the recall. Sure, Sawant would likely have responded in her characteristic way and the Stranger would likely have been unimpressed by such a move, but the big corporate media (TV and the Seattle Times) who never liked Sawant would have given it fawning front-page coverage and in such a close election it almost surely would have motivated enough of the above-described Trump-hating Sawant skeptics for the recall to succeed. They only needed a handful. Even if it hadn't tipped the result, it should at least have been tried. Not doing so was a major screwup, no matter how anyone feels about it.

@27 Tl;dr version of the above: In politics even dishonest and grossly unfair charges have to be countered if they gain salience with voters, and the recall campaign did nothing tangible to counter this one. All they did was complain about it, which is seldom if ever sufficient.

@28, @29: Assuming that had all been done, the Sawant campaign could then have matched those same Trump donors to signatures on the recall petitions, thus “proving” it was (all together, now!) a “racist, right-wing recall.” And if even those names could not be found, Sawant and the Stranger would have said it anyway. They do not need any real bases for their claims.

If we want to accuse the Recall Sawant campaign of being lax, then we can criticize them for not having challenged the same-day registrations that were part of Sawant’s vote-harvesting effort. That effort is the actual and only reason she won.

Note that even though she won the recall, she’s leaving office. Once that many citizens signed a recall petition, any future re-election campaign automatically faced a treasure-trove of ready-made anti-Sawant voters. Combined with the deep unpopularity of the Council generally, there was no reason for Socialist Alternative to bother with another attempted repurchase of her seat. She won the battle, but lost the war.

Bax, Post 19,
Who is King??

@12, @24: Agreed, Council Member Binda could use some gentle guidance from more experienced politicians, and it sounds like both the town of Lynwood and Snohomish County have Black legislators who could help him. I hope stops posting shirtless pics on social media, and starts working full-time in the elected office voters have entrusted to him. If not, he risks resembling CM Sawant in another way: ultimately leaving office with almost nothing to show for the time spent in it.