If you get busted with a small amount of pot, it’s the Seattle City
Attorney who decides whether to charge you (a misdemeanor punishable by
jail time and a fine) or drop the case. If you serve alcohol to a
minor, the city attorney chooses whether to press charges that could
land you in jail for a year or fine you $500. And when someone sues the
city because his or her right to free speech has been violated, the
city attorney tells city officials whether to appeal the case or
concede error. The city attorney is the prosecutor in chief.
In Seattle, unlike in most cities, the city attorney is not
appointed by a city official but elected by voters.
In 2001, Tom Carr won the election in a landslide. He was hailed as
sweet relief compared to Mark Sidran, his anti-poor,
anti-civil-liberties predecessor, who left the office to run for mayor.
But Carr, despite campaign vows, has not proven himself a contrast to
Sidran. Carr believes that he should continue to prosecute marijuana
possession cases despite a 2003 voter-passed initiative that made
marijuana possession the city’s lowest law-enforcement priority. Pot
prosecutions did drop—thanks to Seattle police making fewer
arrests—but Carr unbelievably prosecuted a higher percentage of
pot cases referred to his office.
Carr also believed that when police made 27 arrests in Operation
Sobering Thought, a sting on bar employees, that he should charge each
defendant with gross misdemeanors—seeking up to one-year jail
terms rather than a $500 fine, which is what the Washington State
Liquor Control Board does. The city attorney’s office was so aggressive
and sloppy about the sting that Danny Westneat wrote in the sometimes
pro-nanny-state Seattle Times that this was “the nanny state
gone way too far.” One of Westneat’s examples: police jailing “a
23-year-old bar assistant for 11 hours—allegedly for serving a
drink to a drunk guy—when their own report says she ‘poured him a
glass of water.'” Widely regarded as a man with axes to grind who
pushes a tough-on-crime agenda (even crimes citizens don’t think the
city should be tough on), Carr has the advantage of incumbency (he ran
unopposed in 2005), name recognition, and formidable legal skills.
But a relative unknown, police watchdog Peter Holmes, who’s running
against Carr in November’s election, is slaughtering Carr in one arena:
endorsements from Democratic groups. In a two-minute speech before a
crowded room of the King County Democrats on June 23, Holmes, who led
the police-misconduct oversight committee for five years, blasted Carr
for prosecuting low-level offenses—such as pot possession and
overblown charges of obstructing police officers—while
reflexively pushing unpopular cases representing the city. A few
minutes later, the group handed Holmes his fourth sole endorsement in a
row from local Democrats (the 11th, 37th, and 43rd District Democrats
also granted sole endorsements), while Carr has received none. Several
people in attendance say Carr looked dejected. Indeed, it must have
been a surprise—the same group had endorsed Carr in 2001.
“We supported him big time,” says Suzie Sheary, chair of the King
County Democrats, regarding their Carr endorsement eight years ago. “I
think Tom still has a lot of support, but Peter just has more.”
It’s not just that Holmes has been espousing philosophical lenience
toward low-level, nonviolent crimes. He’s promising to reinvent the
role of city attorney. The office performs two functions: (1)
prosecuting misdemeanor cases, and (2) acting as the city’s lawyer,
i.e., enforcing contracts and defending the city from lawsuits. Holmes
argues that the city attorney works for Seattle residents and voters;
if those voters don’t want pot smokers to go to jail, then the city
attorney should use discretion to drop charges. (Full disclosure: This
is an issue that Carr and I sparred over when we were both appointed to
the panel that oversaw implementation of the marijuana
initiative—an initiative I organized.) And if the city is charged
with a lawsuit where the city is clearly wrong, then the city attorney
shouldn’t waste city resources fighting it. “There is a reason why
Seattle elects its city attorney when most other cities appoint the
position,” Holmes says. “At some point there is obstinacy, and the city
attorney must be careful to consider what is in the city’s best
interest, rather than pursue appeals endlessly.”
For instance, Holmes would not have pursued a case that the city
lost in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in late June. Balloon artist
“Magic Mike” Berger sued in 2002, claiming that the city had infringed
on his constitutional rights when the Seattle Center required him to
purchase a permit, stand in one location in the 74-acre park, and keep
“speech activities” within 30 feet of a captive crowd. Berger lost his
case at first, but challenged the ruling. Carr’s office fought Berger
all the way into federal court—losing when a panel of judges
ruled that parks are locations “where a speaker’s First Amendment
protections reach their zenith.” Now, Carr’s office is considering
appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that what voters think
the city should spend its resources on?
“I would much rather have the conversation be about the positive
changes I want to make rather than criticizing Tom,” Holmes says. “I
think that, you know, he means well—I just think he has made
numerous poor judgments over time.” That’s the tone coming from the
Holmes camp. In an alarming contrast, Carr’s campaign manager Cindi
Laws is an ad-hominem-attack machine. (Laws worked on Holmes’s campaign
before leaving to work for Carr, a friend of hers for 19 years.) “All
he knows is the upside-down end of a ledger sheet,” Laws says about
Holmes, a bankruptcy attorney by profession, before adding that
Holmes’s “only purpose in life is squeezing that last drop of blood out
of a business.” She argues that Holmes’s years as chair of the
police-misconduct oversight board was merely “grandstanding.”
Meanwhile, Carr’s support seems to be disappearing fast. Cleve
Stockmeyer, a past candidate for the monorail board, served on Carr’s
steering committee in his election bid in 2001 but now supports Holmes.
He points to repeated settlements in cases that the city has challenged
and lost. Perhaps most egregious: Carr zealously defended the city’s
decision to impound vehicles driven by people with a suspended license
(such as drivers who have failed to pay traffic tickets). The state
supreme court tossed out the controversial law—which essentially
skipped due process by seizing people’s property on the spot—and
a judge later ruled against Carr’s office in a class-action lawsuit,
ruling the city had to pay up to $1.3 million in settlement.
“I think the perception is that [Carr] is arrogant because he tends
to think that this is his fiefdom and he is entitled to it,” says Lem
Howell, an attorney who handles civil-rights and personal-injury cases.
At a campaign kickoff for Holmes in late June populated by attorneys,
Howell added that, under Carr’s watch, “crimes of violence are not
getting the attention they deserve.”
Carr’s résumé is littered with other unpopular
crusades. In 2007, Carr subpoenaed three Seattle Times reporters, attempting to force them to name confidential sources or
face jail time (he dropped the case a few days later). The same year,
he charged dozens of bar employees caught up in the aforementioned bar
sting (attorneys for the defendants say that in some cases, undercover
police would order drinks and hand them to underage patrons). “Carr did
not investigate the circumstances around the arrests and ask himself,
‘Do we have strong cases?'” says Dave Osgood, who represented three of
the defendants. None of the 27 cases resulted in a successful
prosecution, and, in the case of employees at Ibiza, the judge declared
a mistrial after Carr’s office failed to inform the employee that his
testimony could be used against him. “This was nothing but political
grandstanding on his part,” Osgood says.
Carr believes that “the role of the city attorney is to work with
the policy makers” even when those officials may be wrong, he says. But
he insists he’s gone “easier on low-level offenses than any other
Seattle City Attorney.” However, attorneys, district Democrats, and
Carr’s former allies think his priorities are still misplaced—and
that Holmes will enact the change people thought they were getting when
they voted for Carr eight years ago. 
Carr’s comment in response to the King County Dems endorsement was reported by Johnathon Fitzpatrick on Twitter. Carr said: “”It’s just infuriating, but that’s life. We’ll deal with it.”
Holems also got endorsed by the Metro Dems – vote was Carr 9, Holmes 33, with zero votes for No Endorsement.
Of the partisan races, that means Holmes had the most resounding support of ANY of the candidates from Metro Dems – almost 80%.
The 34th District (Carr and Nickels home district) is issuing endorsements on July the 8th at Fauntleroy Hall. Carr is a long-time, active member and Nickels paid his dues recently and there’s a lot of interest in the endorsements from that District. Are you going to be there, Dominic?
Greg paid his dues recently? WTF? Greg has paid his dues to the 34th every year.
Odd that the 34th District newsletter has narry a word on the hissy fit Carr pitched at the June forum when Holmes held his feet to the fire on these issues.
Well, it is on the 34th website, so it’s easy to check. Greg Nickels shows in 04 as a member up to May 05. Don’t see anything in 07 or 08. Looks like his name appears on the website as a benefactor ($100) in June 09. That would put him paying dues in May, right around the time that he plead his case at the board meeting on May 24, right?
diogenese – missing from the newsletter? Weird, it doesn’t say anyting about Carr getting all bothered and calling his opponent a liar. I was pretty impressed with Mr. Holmes because of his calm demeanor and factual statements. He just kept saying “look at the record”. Very lawyerly. What do the minutes say? Are they wrong or something?
bikerchick @1, I wouldn’t exactly call Carr and “active member”. He may pay his dues, but only rarely attends meetings of the 34th District Democrats. Other electeds who live in the 34th seem to find the time to show up and participate such as Dow Constantine and Tom Rasmussen.
Miranda, we’ll i have seen carr there. At least he goes to meetings! You are right, though, active is a little strong and implies participation. Nickels on the other hand, hasn’t even been there (years?) except for the candidate forum.
Dominic,
Thank you for writing this story, which really needed to be written. Carr likes to talk about his successes with programs for alternatives to detention, but it seems like nobody ever challenges him on his strict approach to cases that many citizens would consider less of a priority. When he insists on jail time for questionable, nuissance cases, he guarantees drawn out processes, and certainly doesn’t do anything to help the issue of jail capacity.
I’m not 100% sold on Holmes, but I think that Cindi Laws really misses the mark on her critique of him. It sounds like she’s trying to make him sound evil, just because he was a bankruptcy lawyer, which is silly. Perhaps a more persuasive question would be to ask whether he is knowledgeable enough about the issues and types of law the City Attorney deals with. Of course, I don’t think that Carr really had a lot of relevant experience prior to taking office, either.
yea, the experience thing is stupid. Carr didnt do anything before being a city attorney that was so special either. Peter spent 8 years dealing with transparency issues and has won numerous awards praising him for his legal prowess. Even if its mostly in Bankruptcy… ask yourself what Tom Carr did before being a city attorney. He was a commercial lawyer. How is this any different? He was briefly a US attorney prosecuting organized crime… so he had experience in what… 5% of the cases he deals with as city attorney? You learn on the job, and seattle needs someone with more progressive ideas than Tom.
I supported Tom Carr, but Carr has been in the papers arguing the case for traffic cams that will “stop red-light runners and speeders and thereby calm intersections.” Yeah, well, I got a cam-ticket at 23rd and E. John for a free right turn, as did my next-door neighbor. Now I’ve lived in the CD for 40 years and I have a lot of driving experience at 23rd and E John St., and I refuse to pay a $124 ticket for a good driving judgement that a camera cop turns into a bean-counting (seconds) exercise. So screw Tom Carr and his money-grabbing ticket-cams.
One problem that City Attorney Candidate Peter Holmes faces is that he may not meet the requirements under the City Charter for the position of City Attorney. Section XIII of the Charter requires the City Atttorney to have practiced law for the four years prior to his or her election. Holmes was reportedly inactive for a period of time during the past four years. While a lawyer is on inactive status, the lawyer cannot practice law.
“Widely regarded as a man with axes to grind who pushes a tough-on-crime agenda”
… HA! only if he isn’t operating on an conflicting agenda- first and utmost taking a risk adverse course of action on behalf of the city even when contrary to the law. City first, laws second.
Carr needs to go.
Go Holmes! and give us accountability and transparency and consistent application of adherence to laws.
@charterreader
Not an issue and a strawman. Gotta get some new talking points!
@bikechick
Why isn’t it an issue? How can someone who could not legally practice law during the last four years qualify under the City Charter? Please explain?
Pete has been fully authorized and licensed to practice law since his Washington State admission in 1986. It’s not an issue because you are factually incorrect. Thanks.
Ivan, did you find that documentation that support your assertion that Greg is a long-time 34th member? Be interested to see it.
Sorry, bikechick, but you’re factually incorrect. Peter Holmes was on inactive status during the last four years and could not practice law during that time. You can look it up.
@charterreader
I did look it up. However, since you are the one making the assertion, please do offer your evidence.
As a matter of fact, I challenge you to file the appropriate documentation and raise a legal challenge. That would be the appropriate thing thing to do.
Barring facts, evidence or a legal challenge: this is just nasty politics.
Here’s the Charter: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/n…
It says: The City Attorney shall be an attorney of the Supreme Court of the State, and have been in the practice of his or her profession in The City of Seattle for at least four years next prior to his or her election.
Holmes is a practicing attorney in the state of washington and in the city of seattle. He has not now, nor has he ever been, on inactive status in Washington. License up to date, dues paid, credits fulfilled.
Here’s the Holmes bar page: http://pro.wsba.org/MemberDetails.aspx?U…
It is you that is making this specious claim. Since this has been investigated and proven false already, I really question why you keep bringing it up. There’s a great phrase in legal circles: When the law is on your side – pound the law. When the evidence is on your side – pound the evidence. When neither is on your side – pound the table. This isn’t even pounding the table – it’s specious, unfactual and malicous character assassination brokered under the cover of anonymous emails and blog postings and whispers in back alleys. Not admirable for the campaign of a member of the legal profession. Swiftboating is a GOP technique!
Not a lawyer here, but I’m pretty sure that this last line of yours is well into defamation and libel: “Peter Holmes was on inactive status during the last four years and could not practice law during that time.”
You will also note that Pete Holmes was employed BY THE CITY and recieved compensation in the same manner as did Tom Carr. Irony alert! He also did other legal work during that time, as a practicing attorney.
What is interesting to note is that Pete has been in Private Practice more recently than has Carr and neither is in private practice now. To require such, would be unconstitutional, of course.
@bikerchick
Ok. I’ll take you at your word and retract my earlier statement. Based on what you say, it appears that “Holmes is a practicing attorney in the state of washington and in the city of seattle. He has not now, nor has he ever been, on inactive status in Washington. License up to date, dues paid, credits fulfilled.”
Wow That city is Fucked up. people are fleeing in mass droves. over 1/2 the people I know are heading to Portland in an attempt to live there life in peace. Washington is now the reddest of red states. they do not even try that kinda crap in Texas or Oklahoma. IMO they should change the name to bustington
Dominic:
Thanks for your disclosure regarding your involvement in the marijuana decriminalization initiative (which really does nothing as federal law controls on the matter). Please also disclose whether you’ve made or solicited any contributions for Holmes.
@21 Incorrect, I-75 tells the city not to pursue marijuana cases where the amounts were clearly for personal use. It’s kept about 60 people from seeing a courtroom each year since it passed in 2003.
Washington is now the reddest of red states.That city is Fucked up.