Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson, ever out of sync with local Democrats, expressed “real strong concern” for a pair of bills in the Legislature that would give jurisdictions the option to switch their local elections from odd to even years, a reform that passed with overwhelming support in a 2022 King County ballot initiative.
While she acknowledged that even-year elections attract much higher voter turnout, Nelson echoed a quality vs. quantity argument once pushed by Republican County Council Member Regan Dunn and right-wing pundit Jason Rantz: “…Greater turnout doesn’t necessarily mean a better-informed public when it comes to the issues that impact people’s daily lives most directly, which is the stuff that comes out of City Hall,” she said.
These comments in the council’s January 22 briefing mark the latest episode in Nelson’s naked conservatism. During her brief tenure as president, she’s already fired a staffer who she perceived as progressive, installed a conservative who lost her election, and now she’s supporting a status quo of voter suppression with the same infantilizing arguments used to disenfranchise Black would-be voters during the Jim Crow era.
Bill Background Info, If You Even Care
Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac) introduced House Bill 1932 this session to give localities the option to move their municipal elections to even years, a move that she believes, and that research shows, increases voter turnout.
Gregerson has tried and failed to pass the policy several times, but Washington Community Alliance Executive Director Kamau Chege, who advocates for consolidating elections, said that support appears to be growing. He feels confident as the bill advances to its second reading, moving quicker than other legislation this year, that it could land on the Governor’s desk.
Legislators from King County seem especially supportive this year after seeing voters pass a ballot measure to move County elections to even years, Chege said. Seattle Reps. Darya Farivar, Emily Alvarado, Liz Berry, Julia Reed, Nicole Macri, Chipalo Street, plus King County-area Reps. Tina Orwall, Roger Goodman, and Kristine Reeves all cosponsor HB 1932. On the Senate side, Seattle Sens. Javier Valdez, Noel Frame, Bob Hasegawa, Joe Nguyễn, Jamie Pedersen, and King County-area Sens. Patty Kuderer, Manka Dhingra, Karen Keiser, and Derek Stanford all cosponsor its unofficial companion bill, Senate Bill 5723.
Despite huge support from Nelson’s local peers, Alan Durning, the founder of Sightline Institute, said he and other democracy reform advocates are not surprised with Nelson’s comments. After all, she benefited from disenfranchisement.
“When you’re Sara Nelson and you got elected when half the electorate was looking the other way, you might be concerned under a system where more people know you’re on the ballot,” said Chege.
Incumbents Gonna Incumbent
Nelson won her election in 2021, when 55% of registered voters in Seattle turned in a ballot and 53% voted in her race against social justice powerhouse Nikkita Oliver. For comparison, the next year in the midterm elections, some Seattle legislative races saw nearly 75% turnout. In the year before Nelson’s win, which featured the very sexy 2020 presidential race at the top of the ticket, those same legislative districts saw 90% turnout, and more than 85% of registered voters weighed in on the Seattle congressional races.
Digging a little deeper, precinct-level data shows that voters in wealthier, whiter areas along the waterfront tend to come out for every election, including odd-numbered years. These are the voters who put Nelson and the new crop of corporate stooges on the council.
On the other hand, the voters who pick progressives such as Oliver, who live in more racially diverse, working-class, interior areas, vote at lower rates in every election, but they especially drop off in odd years. These lower turnout voters tend to rent, so they may move more often and forget to update their ever-changing address on their voter registration to catch every one of the four elections the County holds each year. Plus, political consultants sometimes advise against putting too much money or energy toward winning these voters because they don’t show up as often. Vicious cycle.
So, if you’re a corporate husk who campaigns on the fears of wannabe suburbanites along the waterfront, you may have to shake up your strategy in an even-year election.
What’s Next, Literacy Tests?
But Nelson didn’t say anything about specifically wanting to exclude progressives, or poor people, or people of color—she’s just worried a higher turnout would mean a less-informed voting public. Democracy advocates have heard that one before.
“This country has a sad history of questioning voters’ knowledge,” said Durning, noting that during the Jim Crow era states forced Black would-be voters to pass racist, classist “literacy” tests to prove they were worthy of participating in democracy.
It’s hard to measure how much information a given voter possesses, and, as Washington Bus Political Manager Jazmine Smith said in an interview, it’s not up to Nelson or anyone else to be the arbiter of which voters are informed enough. Nevertheless, Durning said research shows that electeds selected during higher-turnout elections align better with the electorate in terms of demographics and beliefs.
“It’s not a direct measure of information, but voters must have enough information to choose someone who speaks for their values,” Durning said.
Besides, voters typically don’t conduct hours and hours of independent research on each race. Instead, Durning said, they consult the State or County voter guide, their more politically savvy friends, or the news outlets they trust.
So, Durning argued, it wouldn’t make much of a difference if there were 10 races or 30 races on a given ballot. Regardless of what Nelson thinks of low-propensity voters’ information levels, down-ballot races see more turnout in even years than top-of-ballot races do in odd years, according to Sightline.
While Nelson did literally say “greater turnout doesn’t necessarily mean a better-informed public,” she didn’t put all the blame on individual voters. She worried that national races may overshadow local races in the media, and that local organizations may not have capacity to conduct candidate forums and other forms of voter education with other big races taking priority.
Sure, I look at the list of elections The Stranger and every other media outlet needs to cover this year and feel my palms start to sweat, but, frankly, if you worry that local races will get drowned out in the media, the answer is not to accept half as much voter turnout, the answer is to invest in local media. If Nelson’s so worried, I encourage her to donate to The Stranger.
As for organizers, Smith seems to think the Washington Bus can handle the workload of consolidated elections. It would make the job of reminding voters to vote in the first place a lot easier!
More on Nelson
Nelson has opposed election reforms in the past. In July 2022, the Seattle City Council voted to put their own ballot measure for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) alongside a citizen-run initiative for Approval Voting, which some argued would work against minority or anti-establishment candidates.
Nelson, joined by then-Council President Debora Juarez, voted against adding RCV to the 2022 ballot. She argued that the council should “just get out of the way,” despite working perfectly within their bounds by adding an alternative measure. At the time, former Council Member Teresa Mosqueda countered Nelson, saying, “There’s nothing more democratic than giving voters a choice on something so consequential.” Voters ultimately chose RCV. See ya in 2027, baby.
Nelson’s emerging pattern of squeamishness about democracy reforms emboldens claims that the new council prez is out of step with Seattle voters.
“When an elected official stands against democracy reform after democracy reform, then it really makes me wonder about how they feel about their constituency and if they feel only a certain subset are willing to continuously elect them,” said Smith.
Considering Hannah wrote “the very sexy 2020 presidential race at the top of the ticket, those same legislative districts saw 90% turnout, and more than 85% of registered voters weighed in on the Seattle congressional races” shouldn’t the push be to only hold elections during presidential elections? If folks want to maximize turnout – that seems like the obvious solution.
Side note, what’s the over / under on Hannah having a psychotic break before the end of Nelson’s term (she really, really hates that lady)?
Nelson should be excited about low info voters having a say, since the people who support her are overwhelmingly rubes who believe whatever they hear from KOMO or Jason Rantz or Jonathan Choe. But regardless how anyone feels about the caliber of voters, the number of elections in this city and county is absurd and I see no compelling reason not to consolidate them. It would presumably cost less too.
“Nelson won her election in 2021, when 55% of registered voters in Seattle turned in a ballot and 53% voted in her race against social justice powerhouse Nikkita Oliver.”
Oliver beat Nelson in the primary, gaining 40.2% of the vote compared to Nelson’s 39.5%. Turnout was 198,608.
Oliver then lost badly in the general, gaining just 46% of the vote compared to Nelson’s 53.9%. Turnout was substantially higher at 258,724.
If, as Hannah suggests, Nelson benefitted from the low turnout of an odd election year, how is it possible she improved so much in the general election? I mean, if Hannah was correct, wouldn’t you expect Oliver, as the more progressive candidate, to gain ground in the general when more voters were participating?
The opposite is true — a low turnout does not mean a better-informed public. Informing voters is a different, largely independent goal. Democracy vouchers were supposed to help, but they largely failed, under an avalanche of corporate money. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
We are simply trying to ease the burden on those that find voting difficult, for whatever reason. Maybe they just moved. Maybe they live in their car, and have trouble registering. Maybe they just have a shit-ton going on. Forcing people to vote on odd-years is onerous, and just reduces the chance that they will vote. By doing so, the electorate is bound to be more financially stable — i. e. people own their own house. This is unfair to those who struggle and are living paycheck to paycheck. Nelson either knows this, or is really fucking ignorant. Hard to say which is worse.
Oh and Hannah — you should be aware that RCV will not effect most elections. It only applies in the primary. Since we have an open primary, it rarely matters. In contrast, approval voting very well could have changed the outcome of the election where Nelson was elected. Rather than the demagogue Oliver or the conservative Nelson, we very well could have nominated the progressive Brianna Thomas, who would have beaten either one in a head-to-head matchup.
The electoral systems solve different problems. RCV prevents the splitting of the vote. Approval voting reduces extremism. The latter lead to Sara Nelson (and Ann Davison). That is why the people pushed it.
I don’t disagree with the statement, “greater turnout doesn’t necessarily mean a better-informed public,” but, I would agree that it is a non-answer to the, “Why change election cycles?” question.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Consider it fallacious political speech.
What I think you flubbed here is: voter education is a politician’s job, if not career.
Maybe I have this wrong, but, I think that ‘politicking’ should go beyond trendy slogans, into the weeds, and the truth, and give the electorate enough knowledge that they can figure out what positions they want to support, those they want to oppose. With mail-in voting, we get days and days, and we can vote in “open book” format vs. notes like we used to, bad weather or bad parking, and all that went with it back in the day.
In this light, the Council wants a pass for doing subpar work (voter education) on odd numbered years. WTH? I’d buy that argument more than paint them more red than blue, or any other color.
Accusing folks of partisanship as political argument, is similarly fallacious.
@9 She makes me laugh. I don’t even read her columns much anymore. It’s the same stuff worded differently. We need to tax every business to give money to the companies that advertise in The Stranger. Got it.
@6 — “Forcing people to vote on odd-years is onerous, and just reduces the chance that they will vote. By doing so, the electorate is bound to be more financially stable — i. e. people own their own house. This is unfair to those who struggle and are living paycheck to paycheck. Nelson either knows this, or is really fucking ignorant. Hard to say which is worse.”
This is ridiculous. Washington has appropriately made it incredibly easy for people to vote. Every state in the country would benefit from adopting our entirely vote by mail system. It’s easy to register, easy to research at your own pace, easy to fill out your ballot whenever you want before election day, easy to drop it in the mail at no expense, easy easy easy. That’s great! Contrary to your claim, it’s not at all onerous.
But there’s a flip side to that. There’s typically — at most — 4 elections a year. February, April, August, November. Some years there’s even less. If you can’t figure out how to take the time to vote once every 3 months at most using the most voter friendly system in the country, that’s not about the system, that’s about you. Stop making excuses for people that are lazy and can’t get their shit together.
There may well be valid reasons to move all elections to even years. But don’t try to say that one of them is because our system in Washington is onerous when it’s not.
The Stranger should’ve endorsed Brianna Thomas instead of Oliver in the 2021 primary. Sara Nelson would be pouring beers in Fremont instead of giving tech bros tax breaks at City Hall.
@10,
You write “…It’s the same stuff worded differently. We need to tax every business to give money to the companies that advertise in The Stranger.”
This column doesn’t contain the word “tax” once. It’d have been difficult for you to make shoobop’s point any more effectively.
Gonna be hilarious watching TS redo this take when many of the “conservative” initiatives pass later this year in Nov during a cycle with record turnout.
@10 I was being sarcastic. Businesses are already taxed too much. Some are leaving because of it, but I think most are leaving because it’s impossible to run a business with an army of drug addicted thieves running the city without any consequences to their actions.
@14 Exactly…. turnout is all well and good for the Stranger until people turn out to vote for initiatives because Olympia thinks they are above, and will not listen to, the people.
I think the online Marriam-Webster site should just link the definition of hyperbole to one of these Krieg articles.
Feeble-minded People Unite! Follow Hannah into progressive utopia
@11 “Stop making excuses for people that are lazy and can’t get their shit together.”
As a 100% voter I would flip that around: piddly off year elections scheduled like that for no good reason are one more thing to have to pay attention to in a busy life. I have no patience for elected officials who can’t simplify things by consolidating down to unified election cycles. I don’t find it “onerous” to vote in off year elections, but it’s still a needless annoyance so they should just fix it out of simple respect.
“These lower turnout voters tend to rent, so they may move more often and forget to update their ever-changing address on their voter registration to catch every one of the four elections the County holds each year.”
THIS is what counts as ‘voter suppression’? FFS! Having lived in a state that did not have mail in voting, I have no fucking sympathy. Clearly, political issues and voting are not high on the list of priorities for such people anyway. Further, once you have updated your voter registration once or twice, wouldn’t it get easier each time, with practice? Or are they so far gone they have to relearn it each time?
This is almost as bad as that Gene Balk article in the Seattle Times years ago, in which he laments that the burden of voting is “having to REMEMBER to mail in your ballot once completed”.
@19 — “As a 100% voter I would flip that around: piddly off year elections scheduled like that for no good reason are one more thing to have to pay attention to in a busy life.”
No election is piddly. They’re all important. That’s why I — like you — vote in all of them. But no one is so busy that they can’t take an hour two or three times a year to figure out how to vote and drop their ballot in the mail. Anybody who seriously makes that claim is either lying, lazy, or Howard Schultz.
It’s important to note that moving city elections to even-numbered years contains absolutely no guarantee that all (or even most) of the voters who cast ballots would vote in every one of the races on their ballot. The local races could see substantially lower voter participation rates than the state or federal races. The entire premise of this post therefore rests upon a completely unvalidated assumption, and from the headline onwards, attacks CM Nelson on a this unproven basis.
As @4 noted, higher turnouts do not necessarily mean more victories for candidates the Stranger likes. The difference was even more pronounced in Seattle’s last Mayoral elections. The primary had a turnout of 42%. Gonzalez and Harrell received 32% and 34% of those votes, respectively. As noted above, the general election saw 55% turnout, and Harrell defeated Gonzalez by almost a twenty-point landslide, 59% to 41%.
@21 “But no one is so busy that they can’t take an hour two or three times a year to figure out how to vote”
But that’s my point. Sure it’s doable, but it’s 100% not necessary. I could certainly find a way to wait in line for an hour or two three times a year to pay (say) my property tax bill in person the old fashioned way with a check, but if the assessor were making people do that it would be totally obnoxious and stupid.
Off year elections are like that.
@23 It’s “obnoxious and stupid” to expect people to fill in a half dozen bubbles and drop and postage-paid envelope in the mail?
@24: To the Stranger, off-cycle elections have been an obnoxious waste of time, — nay, an existential threat to Democracy Itself! — ever since the Recall Sawant folks inadvertently triggered a special election, one which consisted entirely of one line on a single piece of paper. Now the Stranger just can’t let it go. 😉
@23 There’s zero, zip, nada, no reason for electeds to not fix this and take it off everyone’s plate. Call it what you will…expecting people to jump through a hoop that has no good reason to exist is weak sauce.
@26: “…no good reason to exist…”
I’ve lived most of my voting life in places (Seattle included) where the local elections were in odd-numbered years, and I always preferred it. We had our civic dialog for state and national issues in even-numbered years, and for local elections in the odd-numbered years. This helps to keep the dialogs manageable.
Democracy is a process; voting is one result of that process. A citizen should always stay engaged.
(Also, as noted in many of the comments, above, moving the city elections to even-numbered years won’t necessarily address any of the concerns about turnout.)
@27: “This helps to keep the dialogs manageable.”
Yet we also know for a fact that in odd numbered years it makes those dialogs smaller, less inclusive, and more demographically skewed, which is a bad thing in a democracy.
And if it’s supposed to eb no imposition to spend 2-3 hours tracking issues in off years, then adding 2-3 hours to the even years shouldn’t be, either, and we correct the reduced participation problem.
@28: There’s no reason to believe voters will increase participation in local elections, even if they’re put in the same cycle and ballot as national elections. There’s no requirement to fill out every line of a ballot.
@29: If folks fill out more than none of a ballot and choose to skip more than none of a ballot, but return the ballot, they have by definition participated. “More returned non-blank ballots” = increased participation compared to the status quo.
@30: If the local elections appear alone on a ballot in an odd-numbered year, and the voter does not mark that ballot, then the voter has not participated in the local elections.
If the local elections appear at the end of a larger ballot in an even-numbered year, on a ballot which also contains state and federal elections, but the voter does not mark the lines for local elections, then the voter has not participated in the local elections.
Therefore, moving the local elections to ballots in even-numbered years, by itself, does not in any way ensure greater voter participation in local elections. The entire premise of this headline post is wrong.
@31 you don’t think it’s likely that even one person will fill out a couple more lines on a ballot they’re already filling but would have neglected to fill out a completely separate ballot? That’s really what you think?