It’s time to dig through your pile of unpaid bills and Safeway coupons. We’ve got a special election coming, and your ballot’s due on Tuesday. Let’s get into it.
At its simplest, King County Proposition 1 is a levy renewal. It would continue funding the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), a massive biometric database that stores over 3 million fingerprint and palm print records and helps police connect prints left at crime scenes to people. It also confirms the identities of arrestees, preventing people from being wrongfully detained or released under false names.
On its face, Prop 1 may seem tempting enough. This is, after all, a levy with no organized opposition (as you’ll see on your ballot), endorsed by nearly all King County Councilmembers (yep, even the ones you like), and designed to renew a decades-old program that helps solve crimes and identify the dead, sometimes those beyond recognition. It’s relatively inexpensive—about $24 a year for the average homeowner—and funds forensic infrastructure across 39 cities and unincorporated King County.
There’s no question that it’s better for local police departments to share a centralized, taxpayer-funded forensic system than to duplicate these services piecemeal at additional public cost. The people who currently run AFIS do seem to take privacy concerns seriously. Additionally, the system doesn’t store citizenship data, and it complies with King County’s ban on facial recognition. As of now, AFIS doesn’t collaborate with ICE (because of the Keep Washington Working Act), doesn’t scoop up facial scans, and doesn’t seem particularly interested in expanding beyond its current scope.
But what if that changes? But even reasonable-sounding systems can be dangerous when left unscrutinized. Surveillance overreach isn’t tinfoil hat anymore. It’s a Tuesday. And surveillance tools rarely stay in their lane for long. We can’t afford to blindly renew government tracking tools—no matter how routine—without first demanding detailed accountability, privacy protections, and public oversight.
We asked Tee Sannon, the Technology Policy Program Director at the ACLU of Washington, and she flagged serious concerns about AFIS—from its potential for abuse to the lack of public transparency around how the system actually works. While the ACLU hasn’t taken an official stance on Prop 1 (they didn’t last time either), Sannon made it clear that questions about how this biometric data is managed, and what might happen to it down the line—are more urgent than ever in today’s political climate. Could this data be repurposed later? Used in ways the public never agreed to? That uncertainty alone should give us pause.
AFIS is a surveillance system, and like all surveillance systems, it lives inside a criminal legal infrastructure with a long and ongoing track record of racism, data misuse, and mission creep. And right now, this system operates with little meaningful public oversight, and just as little transparency about how it impacts the communities most likely to be swept up in it.
Back in 2018, we told voters to reject the AFIS levy because it came bundled with facial recognition software, tech we didn’t want then and still don’t trust now. To their credit, the county banned facial recognition in 2021, and AFIS officials say the software has been disabled. But pay special attention to that word: disabled, not deleted. Not dismantled.
We shouldn’t expect the erosion of civil liberties to creep at a snail’s place. Change is coming at the speed and volume of an avalanche. The federal government is hoarding surveillance powers and conducting warrantless data grabs. It’s proudly throwing immigrants like Kilmar Ábrego García in foreign prisons they may never escape. And the ICE snatch job on Rumeysa Ozturk, taken into an unmarked van by plainclothes federal agents, looked awfully like a secret police operation. Our civil liberties aren’t being chipped away at, they’re being jackhammered. So forgive us if we’re slightly suspicious of any system that collects biometric data on hundreds of thousands of people, promises it’s “just for fingerprints,” and asks us to trust that it will never, ever be used for anything nefarious.
This time around, Prop 1 supporters say there’s nothing to worry about. No facial recognition. No new biometrics. No big expansion. Just a routine renewal. Just trust us.
We’d be skeptical of that any day, but today? Today the federal government is pulling every lever it can find to surveil the population and amass information that can support its agenda of mass deportations—and that’s just what’s happening three months into the administration.
Prop 1 allows data collected by AFIS to be shared with state and federal agencies—including the FBI—without any clear, enforceable restrictions. Once that data leaves King County’s hands, the Keep Washington Working Act (which keeps Washington law enforcement from participating in immigration enforcement) doesn’t protect our state’s immigrants. The data AFIS collects can be repurposed for uses that are opaque to the public and often hostile to civil liberties.
Worse, the public has no real way to see how the system is being used. AFIS doesn’t publish regular audits or racial breakdowns of whose prints are in the system. There are no citizen oversight bodies empowered to review its operations. There are no requirements for public disclosure when policies change or technologies expand.
AFIS is a biometric dragnet in an era when rights are increasingly fragile, and when the difference between “not used for this” and “can’t legally be used for this” matters more than ever.
Supporters of Prop 1 argue that rejecting this levy will delay investigations, hurt cold case resolution, and force local departments to pay more for worse systems. That might be true. But that’s an indictment of how little effort has been made to rebuild AFIS into something accountable and transparent, not a reason to keep funding it without conditions.
Voting no on Prop 1 is a vote demanding more from a system that has quietly amassed the biometric data of millions of people and is asking for our continued trust with almost no strings attached.
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Surveillance systems don’t get safer when we stop paying attention. They expand when we’re distracted. They deepen when we stop asking questions. And eventually, predictably, they turn toward us.
We’re in a crisis of government, morality, and sanity right now. Anything that helps authoritarianism is worth saying no to, and finding new ways to make it work.
We urge you to vote “No” on King County Proposition No 1.
The Stranger Election Control Board is Nathalie Graham, Marcus Harrison Green, Vivian McCall, Charles Mudede, Emily Nokes, Megan Seling, a very stale Peep from Easter 2020, and Hannah Murphy Winter.
I am super stoked to see an unsigned SECB recommendation parroting your ‘dearly departed’ colleague Hannah’s line because of vibes and whatnot.
What an asinine position – this bodes poorly for the candidates the SECB will promote in the coming months. I predict this will win handily.
Most voters want police to have tools to enable better law enforcement (but I guess TS wants to go back to the days of yesterday – where have I heard that refrain before).
Thank You SECB. Every NO vote on a levy, whether or not it’s just a replenishment, is a win for the middle class.
Seattle Times, Saturday, April 19, 2025 page A8
“Seattle police who were at Jan.6 appeal to high court”
Why am I not super surprised that TS endorses something that would make crime detection and prosecution harder.
“A crisis of morality.”
If morality is a relative concept, held in the eye of the beholder, or depending on who you ask about it, then there really is no morality.
If it exists, where is it written down, and who authored morality?
The SECB urged a “no” vote on this in 2018 as well. Ironically, the voting populace has been so trained to pass levies, this will too.
@2 “What an asinine position”
Concern about unchecked state surveillance in the era of Trump 2.0 is the opposite of asinine.
@6,
It’s written down on your mom’s butthole. I read it last night while I was poking around down there.
@8 this is a local system for local use – the boogeyman of Trump has nothing to do with it. Biometrics are collected by the Feds with or without a local crime fighting tool.
I had hoped that the new leaders at the Stranger would result in a different editorial direction than the longstanding “prioritize at all costs criminals and those who engage in anti-social behavior over those who are law abiding and pro-social” but this editorial shows that nothing has changed. Ah well, I guess it makes sense that the Stranger and so many people who support the Stranger’s stance did everything in their power to elect Trump, as he’s the ultimate example of an anti-social criminal and the complete fulfillment of their editorial goals.
Let’s make sure to do the same with future EMS levies. Sure, they do a great job of saving our lives, but what if they suddenly decide to start murdering us instead of saving us! Same with the Parks levy. I like a good swing as much as the next person, but what’s to keep them from putting alligators and piranhas in the ponds? Oh, I don’t know – just a handful of laws, a county government that doesn’t want to tick off their voters, and a few dozen years of past practice of doing what’s right. Not everything is a conspiracy folks. I look forward to a series of pieces in the Stranger about the injustice of people spending days in jail without being identified, and the criminal cases being dismissed due to lack of evidence. How did this happen!!!!
@10 from the article: “Prop 1 allows data collected by AFIS to be shared with state and federal agencies—including the FBI—without any clear, enforceable restrictions.” How do you imagine the feds collect fingerprints without relying heavily on local law enforcement?
@11 “Ah well, I guess it makes sense that the Stranger and so many people who support the Stranger’s stance did everything in their power to elect Trump”
This is such an absurd statement it singlehandedly wrecks whatever credibility you may have had.
@9 — danke
for the Bellylaugh!
@13b. bingo*
and Bravo
too.
*another
Wormtongue
follower/wannabee?
surely Looks like it.
Hate crimes are skyrocketing and The Stranger doesn’t want these evil criminals perps brought to justice.
What a sick publication.
You’ve achieved moral bankruptcy, and your on the path to financial bankruptcy.
Even for the Stranger, this is a wildly reckless, ill-informed, ignorant endorsement position.
That this is a position taken under the new editorial board is profoundly disappointing.
2 and, particularly, #12 for the win here.
@13: There’s no need to place any trust the Stranger’s reporting. The simple reason for The Stranger to oppose this version is that they opposed the previous version, and that they may have been totally wrong to do so will never occur to anyone at the Stranger, even after their previous reason for opposing it has not been validated:
“Back in 2018, we told voters to reject the AFIS levy because it came bundled with facial recognition software, tech we didn’t want then and still don’t trust now. To their credit, the county banned facial recognition in 2021, and AFIS officials say the software has been disabled.”
The Uncommitted movement, the Abandon Harris movement, and at least one Seattle politician whom the Stranger had long supported all worked to defeat Harris, knowing full well a defeat of Harris could mean only one thing, a victory for Trump. The Stranger supported the first two, and refused to criticize the third. If that’s not trying to elect Trump, then please describe what would be.
@13 “How do you imagine the feds collect fingerprints without relying heavily on local law enforcement?”
Currently the Feds collect biometric data via various agencies. Example, eighteen out of twenty-four federal agencies have reported using facial recognition technology. More examples:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Uses biometric data for criminal investigations and background checks.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Manages the largest biometric repository, which includes data from various sources, such as immigration applications and border security.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): Uses biometric data for traveler identification and border security.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA): Implements biometric screening at airports for security purposes.
The Feds for years have been making this change to widespread biometric collection, so to pretend like voters not funding Prop 1 is an act of resistance is (again) asinine.
@18 “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Uses biometric data for criminal investigations and background checks.”
Right but where do they get the data they use from? Specifically as pertains to this discussion, fingerprints. Do you know?
Not surprised that Ye Olde Stranger would oppose the extension of a system that has proven results with solving crime.
Anything to make life easier for criminals.
@19 assuming your curiosity is legit, the Times had a very good article detailing the work of AFIS – https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/king-county-voters-will-decide-on-fingerprint-id-system-used-to-solve-crimes/ (and the include information on the FBI specifically).
But in general, prior to AFIS, jurisdictions relied on the state who shares information with the FBI – if Prop 1 fails, that’s what folks will do yet again (so regardless of how king county will be impacted by the outcome of the vote, the Feds will not – they’ll still get this data).
And lastly, also know a vote against Prop 1 will invariably lead to additional funding needs for SPD, County Sheriff, etc. as each department will need to stand up their own mechanisms for collecting this data (WSP will simply act as the central database which they already do for jurisdictions outside of King County). So ironically a vote against Prop 1 is a vote for increased SPD funding (don’t think the SECB has really thought through this position).
@21 ok so you do know the feds get their prints from state and local jurisdictions. I was legitimately curious about that given your comment @10.
PS there’s no reason people against Prop 1 can’t also oppose increased SPD/KCSO funding for the same purpose.
@22 they get their data from numerous sources (making sure you understand this). And regardless of Prop 1, fingerprinting will still be a thing – it’s instrumental to background checks, gun permits, etc. (not just criminal investigations). Pretending like voting down Prop 1 will end this data collection is disingenuous at best.
@22: “…there’s no reason people against Prop 1 can’t also oppose increased SPD/KCSO funding for the same purpose.”
Then they’re just against making it easier for local police agencies to catch criminals, which numerous commenters, above, have already given as a reason for the Stranger’s opposition.