History, politics, people of Oly WA

Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 1 of 170)

Why does Jim Walsh need to remind everyone Eric Crowl was elected?

Why Does Jim Walsh Need to Remind Everyone That Election Results Matter?
Specifically, when it comes to Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) elections and county political party reorganization meetings?

It probably has something to do with a county judge invalidating election results last summer in a small, rural county in Eastern Washington.

First, What Are PCOs?

I’ve always been fascinated by the role of Precinct Committee Officers in Washington State. I’ve run for PCO myself a couple of times, once as part of a contested slate to maintain control of the county party. I also took part an effort nearly 20 years ago to allow non-PCOs to hold membership in my local party. That effort slightly eroded the power of PCOs and I’m still very proud of that.

Controlling the county party apparatus still matters, although perhaps less than it once did. Today, candidates and campaign committees often handle their own fundraising. However, county parties still control critical campaign services, such as access to walking lists, which would otherwise be expensive for candidates to obtain.

State law emphasizes the importance of local political parties being accountable to voters. PCOs are elected rather than appointed to ensure democratic legitimacy, transparency, and grassroots accountability within political parties. This gives PCOs a stronger mandate and ensures they answer to their neighbors, not just party leadership. If PCOs were appointed instead, it could lead to favoritism or undue influence by party leaders. Elections keep party organizations tied to the grassroots, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few insiders.

PCO elections can have lasting political impacts. Two years ago, after a particularly rough election cycle for Republicans in Washington State (despite it being the midterm of a Democratic presidency) there was an under-the-radar “Red Wave” in PCO elections. This shift led to more MAGA-aligned county organizations and ultimately contributed to the election of the above-mentioned Jim Walsh as state Republican chair the following summer. That, in turn, led to the Washington State GOP’s unusual endorsement-heavy convention earlier this year when they passed over the odds on favorite Republican standard bearer for a more conservative option.

What’s Happening in Pierce County?

So, why does the chair of the Washington State Republicans have to point out that elected PCOs should be able to attend reorganization meetings? Let’s dive into what’s happening in Pierce County.

Eric Crowl (OutragePNW on X), the elected PCO for Precinct 28-556 in Pierce County, says he’s struggling to get a legitimate invitation to the Pierce County GOP’s reorganization meeting. This appears to stem from personal conflicts between Crowl and local party leadership. Crowl, however, believes he is being excluded illegally.

The “reorg” cycle, which happens every two years, is when newly elected PCOs essentially refound their local party. They elect new officers and set a fresh course for local politics. For PCOs like Crowl, participation in this process is fundamental to the role they were elected to perform.

That said, Walsh’s statement that “A County Party can’t unelect an elected PCO” is false because of what happened a few months ago in Pend Oreille County when in fact that did happen.

What Happened in Pend Oreille County?

To understand the context, let’s look back at a shocking event in Pend Oreille County last year, where a judge overturned the results of a PCO election.

After the August primary, Pend Oreille County Superior Court Judge Jessica Reeves disqualified Joe Seaney from serving as a Republican PCO, despite his decisive 63-14 victory in the primary. The court ruled that Seaney was ineligible under the Pend Oreille County Republican Party’s bylaws, which require formal membership, including paying dues. Seaney argued that his long history of voting Republican and identifying with the party should suffice. The judge disagreed, finding that he had failed to meet the party’s criteria.

This challenge was spearheaded by Bill Deilke, chair of the Pend Oreille County Republican Party, who also sought to disqualify another candidate, Brian Smiley. Deilke claimed neither Seaney nor Smiley fulfilled the party’s membership requirements. However, Judge Reeves upheld Smiley’s candidacy, determining that his role as an elected Republican county commissioner granted him ex-officio party membership.

This case stirred broader debates about voter rights, party autonomy, and internal fairness. Critics, like The Newport Miner, argued that voters (not party leaders) should decide who represents them. The editorial board pointed to Seaney’s overwhelming win as proof of public preference and criticized the party for procedural roadblocks.

Deilke defended the party’s actions, asserting that membership rules ensure party integrity and citing state laws that allow parties to define their membership criteria.

Why It Matters

First, I disagree with how Pend Oreille worked out. I have a very specific argument to the judge that cuts through her decision. PCOs elected in August technically don’t take office until after the general election and reorganization meetings. Current PCOs serve through the reorg process, during which new bylaws may be adopted that decide who going forward qualifies as a party member. This creates a convoluted timeline where parties can influence the legitimacy of elected officials before new rules are even in place.

More broadly, the ability of party leaders to cut out elected PCOs raises questions about how political parties should operate. Elections should matter, and it’s baffling to use public resources for electing PCOs if parties are just going to game the system anyway.

Political parties should play a critical role in connecting communities to politics, but they risk becoming even more irrelevant when they narrow participation. I say “should” and “even more” because the role of local party organizations has declined in my lifetime to a staggering extent. Years ago, local newspapers regularly covered party meetings and reorganization cycles because they were integral to public life. Now, parties seem more insular. During my time in local politics, I was asked not to live-tweet county party meetings. I declined the request but it was a telling message that we were not doing public business.

Ultimately, parties should be open, public, and relevant to the communities they aim to represent. It is not lost on me that the party at the center of this debate currently is not the party I’m associated with. That doesn’t matter at all. Parties should matter because they bring people into civic life from all directions.

The Pend Oreille case demonstrates how party leadership’s insularity can override the clear will of voters, while the Pierce County situation shows how internal grievances can block elected PCOs from participating in crucial reorganization meetings. These examples highlight a troubling pattern of prioritizing party insiders over democratic accountability. If parties continue to narrow participation and sideline elected representatives, they risk becoming even less relevant to the broader public. To regain trust and fulfill their role, political parties must ensure their processes are transparent, accessible, and rooted in the grassroots. Anything less undermines their purpose and weakens the connection between politics and the communities they serve.

We all know the Washington State flag is pretty bad. Here’s how we change it

Designing a new state flag before we know how to replace the state flag is putting the cart before the horse

This is my serious proposal for a new Washington State flag. No, not really. This is my proposal for the flag of movement to replace our universally admitted to be bad state flag.

Get it? We’re putting the cart before the horse. I am hilarious.

Anyway.

New Washington State Flags and Why

So far, we Washington State flag dislikers are too interested in getting to the point of replacing the state flag with something cooler (cool, cool, coooool, they’re all so cool) than realizing that replacing the state flag will take some work.

The state flag is an official state symbol determined by and managed by the state, specifically the Office of the Secretary of State.

Why is the Washington State flag terrible? This video does the best job explaining the concepts of flag design and why ours is just bad (a flag is not money). Watch the entire thing, it is pretty entertaining, but I linked to just the Washington State portion.

Process over Proposals

So, here is my serious proposal for a Washington State Flag Commission. Like many good things, I stole it. This proposal is based on a process recently undertaken in Minnesota to replace their reprehensible flag with something not only cooler, but something that falls into line with the rules of flag design (vexillology).

The Washington State Flag Redesign Commission would created by the state legislator, led by the Secretary of State (who overseas state symbols), and include a diverse group of members to ensure broad representation.

The Commission would set goals and create a design brief that outlining the vision and values for the new flag. Public engagement will be a priority, with a statewide design contest, outreach to schools and communities, and opportunities for public input.

After reviewing submissions, the Commission will select finalists and gather additional feedback. The final design will be put to a public vote during a general election, allowing Washingtonians to choose between the new flag and the current one.

Utah had a similar process recently, which culminated in a vote by the legislature. It is worth pointing out here, but a statewide vote seems more in line with how we work in Washington State.

Exile Ourselves

Earlier this year, a county commissioner in Mason County suggested a plan to banish certain residents from the county. Under the proposal, individuals convicted of specific misdemeanor offenses would be required to leave the county for up to a year if they failed to pay fines, complete community service, or seek treatment at their own expense.

In Seattle, a much more serious proposal would restrict people from entering a stretch of a busy road through the northern end of the city. While scaled down in recent proposals, the system would ban people who are part of the sex trade from entering the area.

The idea that we can just send the homeless “somewhere” is something you’ve heard before if you live around here. Pick your favorite not liked place or institution, and someone has argued that we should send the homeless there. Hippy college in that hippy government town? Send the homeless to Evergreen State College. Old island prison that the state closed down because old island prisons are expensive to run? Send those homeless to McNeil Island

This idea of homeless exile ignores that the homeless came from somewhere already. And, knowing what we know about how homelessness has become endemic in our region, the somewhere is right here. We know homelessness is a housing issue. We made housing in short supply, and since there aren’t enough housing or even shelter beds for everyone, someone in our community is literally left on the street.

And more broadly, we’ve been dealing with this idea for as long as we’ve founded our first colonies on the doorsteps of the indigenous people. The idea that we can keep people from coming to a place, that the place will be better if we just keep some people out, is something that pervades American history in the Pacific Northwest. 

Exile is different from prison because in the examples of exile I pointed to above, those exiled are still otherwise citizens or residents. We haven’t taken away their civil rights, taken away their right to vote while in prison. They aren’t wards of the state in the way that would mean where they sleep, when they eat or what they wear is controlled by the Department of Corrections. We expect them to maintain their own home, food supply and clothing. But also, there are places they cannot go that otherwise, but the rest of us can.

Washington State is like a lot of places in that we’ve used laws to exclude people of certain races. For example, we didn’t invent racially restrictive covenants in Washington State, but we seem to be stuck in a constant cycle of surprise and denial that they ever existed or that they still have an impact. We have to keep front and center that the era in which they were enforced, either legally or tacitly, was also the era when your ability to own a home became equal to your ability to maintain wealth and transfer it to your children.

Washington State also didn’t invent using single family zoning after racial housing discrimination became illegal in the 1960s to prevent neighborhoods from integrating. But many cities in Washington State downzoned in order to preserve “neighborhood character” and ensure the wrong kind of people, people that could only afford to live in houses smaller than detached, single family homes, would ever move in.

Where our exile comes from

The American colonialists’ first taste of exclusion in the Pacific Northwest came in the 1840s, as soon as the first permanent white, American settlement touched down west of the Cascades. 

Unsurprisingly, early settlers to the Oregon Territory (then included what is now Washington State) brought with them the politics of slavery.

Overland settlers to Oregon were most likely to be non-slave holding farmers from Appalachian border areas around Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri. These settlers were not pro-slavery. They were also not New England human rights activists or abolitionists. They didn’t like slavery because they saw it as unfair competition in the form of cheap labor.

Appalachians came to the Willamette Valley to establish a territory of “free soil, free labor,” where smaller farmers would pay for their labor. The black exclusion laws passed in the Oregon Territory before the Civil War were technically also “anti-slavery” laws, as the Free Soil activists that settled the region would have seen them.

They were fine with slavery existing somewhere, just as we’re totally okay with criminals, poor people, people of color and homelessness existing. They didn’t want to solve slavery, just in the same way we’re agnostic to homelessness and crime. As long as it exists outside my own neighborhood, on the Evergreen State College campus, not in Mason County or not along one particular street in Seattle, we’re not concerned.

An Oregon territorial judge, in a case regarding a fugitive slave, put to words what would seem to become the regional perception of slavery. It was incompatible with what he described as the nature of the Oregon community. “Establish slavery here, and (y)ou will turn aside that tide of free white labor which has poured itself like a fertilizing flood across the great States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.”

When Oregon was putting together its constitution, one of the points that all could agree were “…in absolute agreement about (was) the need to preserve homogeneous populations, and that was race.”

So, when Black people (or at least, non-white people) came across the mountains, they were not welcome in Oregon and told to leave. George Washington Bush was raised a Quaker in Pennsylvania, the son of an African from Indian and an Irish-American. He had already reached the Pacific Coast once in his young adulthood as a fur trapper. He set out again in his 40s from Missouri, putting a successful life as a cattle rancher behind him. George Washington Bush, as far as we know, never lived in the antebellum South. He was never subject to chattel slavery. He lived in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Illinois and traveled the Rocky Mountain West more than once. But when he showed up in the Willamette Valley, surrounded by four other white Appalachian families, he was asked to leave for fear he would bring slavery and threaten the economic order of the community.

So, while north of the Columbia was still technically part of the Oregon Territory, Bush took his party to the Puget Sound, exiling himself to a place where the racial exclusion laws could not touch.

The racial exclusion laws did not address the issues, economic or otherwise, around slavery. They did just enough to create the illusion of safety, but probably did more harm than good for a growing colonial community on the edge of the continent. There aren’t many ways to see exiling a rich rancher from the Willamette was economically beneficial.

But we see the Pacific Northwest repeat the mistake of the Oregon black codes throughout our history.

Right after the Civil War, we taxed Asian migrant workers a “police tax” to allow them to work. 

We used mob violence to drive Asian families out. On November 3, 1885, a mob of white residents forcibly expelled the Chinese population from Tacoma. This event is often referred to as the “Tacoma Method” because it was seen as a methodical and organized expulsion.

The anti-Chinese riots in Puget Sound during the 1880s were part of a broader wave of anti-Chinese sentiment and violence across the United States, particularly in the Western states. These events were driven by economic competition, racism, and xenophobia, as Chinese immigrants were often blamed for taking jobs and driving down wages.

This violence was tied directly to labor organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which were influential in the Progressive movement, often excluded Asian and Black workers. In the Pacific Northwest, labor leaders blamed immigrants for driving down wages and advocated for restrictions on Asian immigration. The Asiatic Exclusion League, founded in 1905, was a powerful force in Washington and Oregon, campaigning for further immigration restrictions.

The keystone to the wave of anti-immigrant exclusion actions in the Pacific Northwest was the Johnson-Reed Act, which banned immigration from Asia into the United States in 1924. The “Johnson” in Johnson-Reed was Albert Johnson, an Aberdeen Congressman and a prominent nativist and eugenicist.  His work in Congress reflected the racial and anti-immigrant sentiments prevalent in the Pacific Northwest.

This wasn’t a sideshow in our region’s politics, this was the show.

Excluding people economically, geographically and socially within a place has hurts everyone. It keeps us from solving the problem, from addressing what is really going on. For farmers in the Willamette Valley or labor unionists in Tacoma, the issue wasn’t members of a certain race working, it was a broader system that allowed anyone at all to be exploited. 

If slavery exists, we all suffer. If we exclude anyone, we all suffer.

If someone is spending the money to bring over Chinese citizens to work, it is the system that allows Chinese citizens to be underpaid is the problem.

If you hear a policy that seeks to address a social ill by keeping someone out of a particular part of town, be sure that the issue really at stake isn’t being addressed.

How we all suffer exile

Lisa Daugaard is a criminal justice reformer and co-created the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, which diverts low-level offenders into community services instead of jail. 

Daugaard argues that reintroducing banishment measures in Seattle is ineffective and counterproductive. Drawing on research, she explains that exclusion fails because people return to the areas due to personal ties or access to services, leading to repeated jail stays and further destabilization. Instead of addressing underlying issues like homelessness and addiction, banishment shifts the problem to other neighborhoods without offering real solutions. 

LEAD addresses the root causes by diverting individuals from the criminal justice system and connecting them to essential support services. Rather than arresting people for minor offenses, LEAD provides access to substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing, and job training. This approach targets underlying problems and aims to reduce recidivism by offering holistic, coordinated support, ultimately helping individuals stabilize their lives and reintegrate into society more effectively.

Joshua Leavitt argued 20 years before the Civil War that slavery was an economic drain on the entire country. It may have been good for southern landowners, but for banks and northern workers and anyone else, it was a major economic drain. Today, new research Richard Hornbeck and Trevon D. Logan point out the inefficiencies of slavery were far greater than previously understood. While abolitionists made economic arguments, their research shows how emancipation generated economic gains worth between 4 and 35 percent of the American economy. This growth was at least as important as railroads.

Slavery cost the economy, cost us all. Slavery took $40 out of the economy for each slave, about four percent of the gross national product in 1860.

When some of are excluded (from a place, from the economy) it costs everyone.

The most effective way to exclude people is through zoning. One of the best examples of how we’ve exiled people in our communities has been the expansion of single family zoning since the Fair Housing Act was passed in the 1960s. Prior to the late 1970s, Olympia had a balanced approach to housing, with a significant portion of new developments consisting of multi-family units such as duplexes and quadplexes.

Driven by about barely coded concerns about “ghettos” and racial segregation, the Olympia City Council downzoned neighborhoods, drastically reducing the construction of multi-family housing. This shift led to a preference for single-family homes, resulting in car-dependent, less walkable neighborhoods. The transition to single-family zoning has contributed to increased urban sprawl, diminished walkability, and greater economic and racial segregation. The areas with more single-family homes tend to be whiter and more affluent.

While the downzones may not have been intentionally racist, they are classically institutional racism in that they have perpetuated segregation and inequity in housing. The exclusionary nature of single-family zoning has had long-lasting negative effects on community diversity and equity.

What we also know is that keeping Olympia economically (and racially) segregated ended up punishing kids at the bottom end of our community. Research by economists Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz shows children from low-income families who move to better neighborhoods show significant improvements in long-term outcomes. These include lower teenage birth rates, higher college attendance, and increased earnings as adults. Their study showed that children who moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods earned 31% more and had better life outcomes compared to those who stayed in higher-poverty areas.

A broader study of 5 million families also confirmed these findings, showing that children in better neighborhoods had higher college attendance rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, and greater incomes. The benefits increased with longer residence in improved areas. Zoning to allow a broader use across the city will lead to less expensive housing among more expensive housing, meaning better outcomes for kids from less wealthy families. All the while, kids from wealthy families are not harmed.

Where we go after exile

I think it is important that I made this entire argument without citing the exclusion built into our colonial Pacific Northwest DNA. The treatment of treaty tribes in Western Washington (that I am most familiar with) and the Pacific Northwest broadly, is the first and largest “you don’t belong here” we ever committed. Now it is baked into a legal treaty relationship that, while we’ve gotten better at, is something we still stumble through more than we should.

We are going to continue proposing exile as a solution. This persistent practice underscores a troubling historic trend of shifting societal issues rather than addressing our root causes. 

Historical patterns of exclusion, from the racial black codes of the Oregon Territory to modern-day zoning policies, are a longstanding attempt in the Pacific Northwest to manage societal problems by isolating certain people rather than integrating and addressing their needs.

Let the decimation of the Everett Herald be when we decided to save journalism in Washington

The sudden news at the Everett Herald is a reminder of the ongoing decline in working journalists in Washington State. Last month, 10 out of the 18 reporters on the ground and two editors were laid off at the daily newspaper in Snohomish County.

The story is sadly typical. Old chain ownership declares bankruptcy, new owners swoop in and pick up mastheads, circulation and advertising contacts at bargain-basement prices. The sale is made more palatable by cutting non-revenue positions at the get go. While the backlash may be loud, it’ll normally fade into the darkness as subscribers drift away and the rest of us accept the new normal.

While the percentage of reporters is itself startling, I was shocked by the gross number. Ten reporters is about twice the number of reporters that cover Olympia or Thurston County (from Olympia and Thurston County) any given day.

And while such a large cut at one time in one paper is a shock to the system, reporter layoffs in the Puget Sound, or nationwide have been going on in earnest for about two decades.

The odd thing about the state of newspapers and news is that relatively speaking, Washington is doing better than most states news desert wise. Only Asotin County is officially marked as a news desert on the notorious UNC Journalism map. But even that is belied by the existence of a newspaper in Lewiston across the border in Idaho that covers Asotin County news.

But the fact that many of our newspapers have so far survived, just shows that the Herald layoff are just a reminder that there is still pretty far for us to fall. If we assume that Washington State has lost newsroom jobs at somewhere near the national rate, we are saving mastheads by losing reporters. Which means at some point, the newspapers themselves will start disappearing.

I started my career as a reporter over two decades ago in small, rural papers. While I loved the work, it didn’t take me long to move over to better paying media relations jobs. As someone who tries to earn media for a living, I can see how the decline in places to earn it has had an impact on our communities and my work.

I remember the early days of social media and the promise of telling “our own stories” without an intermediary. That certainly didn’t work out the way we thought it would. At first, we were migrating our work and content to platforms that “our audience” were using anyway. We adapted our content strategies to follow the curve preferred by platforms, then we began paying to access the audience that had opted in to seeing our content in the first place.

Now, most of our content is buried in walled gardens that are increasingly moving away from promoting content with outside links.

I’m heartened to see the Everett community fill up the Letter to the Editor inbox at the Herald with their pain. These letters are making the righteous case for local journalism. They aren’t wrong that communities are being made better when reporters are working. But to work, reporters need to get paid. And the economic argument of a post bankruptcy purchase. Even the most civically minded owners, profit, non-profit, (whatever) need money.

But I’ll be honest with you. There is no money is local journalism. There are two reasons.

  1. Reasonable expectation that content on the internet is accessible (free). It is just how the web works. I click here, I get that. So if I have to pay for it, that’s too much friction for me to care. Especially when it is less than scintillating news about local issues. People expected they’d pay to have a newspaper delivered to their house or out of the box, but to pay for something on the internet is just too much bother.
  2. Meta and Alphabet and programmatic advertising houses hoover up all the online ad revenue. Even if local news companies decided to open up their doors and lean totally on ad revenue, they could never keep up. These advertising behemoths operate on a different level. Their profit margins are massive because they don’t support supplying content to go alongside the ads. They just spend their time on profit producing spy tech that captures users and delivers incredibly cheap ads to eyeballs. As someone that controls an incredibly modest digital ad budget, I would be wasting money if I didn’t use these platforms. It is definitely time to break them up, but that is the job of the federal government, to be honest.

So, that’s the setup. More and more legacy media organizations will drift onto the shoals as the online media ad platforms lower the tide by sucking the ocean dry. If these legacy companies don’t just die, they’ll stay alive as raiders come by and keep them alive to pump the last bit of economic value out of them.

So, here’s what we should do

We don’t need to support the old legacy organizations. In a lot of places, we should. Despite their chain and, oftentimes, hedge fund owners, the people left working there are highly trained professional journalists, and we may consider honoring their work by helping pay for it any way we can. But they don’t have to be the only game in town.

So let me say this: if Everett comes out of this emotional moment in their community with just a smaller Everett Herald, I’ll be disappointed. Gig Harbor Now, Range (in Spokane) show how green shoots of new growth can start showing up in our communities.

If Everett is as worked up as they seem to be from the letters to the editor, the community up there should start talking about launching a new effort, raising money and generally not giving up.

Other than starting a brand-new thing from the ground up, the Everett community should also consider simply raising money to increase journalism in any form in their community. This can literally start tomorrow (hint hint)

Other examples of local private funding are the Nebraska Journalism Trust and the Central Valley Journalism Cooperative in California. I’m part of a team trying to get this going in Olympia too.

Lastly, I don’t think it is too far to explore how government can help support journalism. I spelled this out last year pretty comprehensively. Basically, I think we should copy the New Jersey Civic Information Network. But there are a few new developments that I think are worth covering.

Let’s not copy the JPRA in any sense. It is a link tax that ignores the structure of the open internet. And like I said above, the platforms the JPRA supporters say are “stealing” links are either actually driving traffic to legacy organizations that are starting be ignored by platforms anyway. Jeff Jarvis has the best thoughts on this, so I’ll defer to him.

A tax on online advertising that would fund a civic information network would be an almost perfect policy solution, though. Online advertising monopolies create negative externalities for local journalism. Carving off a piece of their revenue gained in Washington State and paying reporters would be a tight little loop. Both California and Maryland have passed these taxes, Washington should join.

Break up the ad tech giants. Just that.

Will Thurston County deaths outstrip births again?

Last year’s population estimates were historic in Thurston County, for at least one reason: for the first time since records have been kept, the number of annual births were outpaced by deaths. The county still saw a population increase because of in-migration. But, even those numbers were relatively flat, keeping with a recent trend of steady (if historically median) in-migration. Since the historic in-migration in Thurston County in the 1970s, the number of people moving here has bounced between 2,000 and 5,000 people each year, despite the increase overall in population.

The data below is based on last year’s population data release from the state.

In regard to how we got to a negative natural population increase, it looks like a combination of a flat birth rate since the recession and a rapid increase in deaths in the last few years. I’m not an epidemiologist, but it seems likely that the natural decrease is probably a combination of the impacts of generational population change (baby boomers getting older), obviously Covid and a flat birth rate.

One thing I’ll definitely want to do with the chart above is change it from raw population data to growth by year as a percentage to give a clearer trend from the 1970’s massive growth to today.

But now let’s look at the historic battle between birth and death:

Underlying data on births v. deaths in Thurston County

Source: Populations estimates (OFM)

While the gap in deaths vs. births was tightening in recent years, mostly because of the flat birth rate, the pandemic spiked deaths in Thurston County, driving the total number of deaths above births.

But, well we zoom out, we see that Thurston County is not alone in losing the battle with death.

Thurston County’s situation seems to be part of a statewide trend across all counties starting a decade or so back. Here are all natural change totals as a percentage of population, colored for increase (blue) or decrease (red):

Underlying data on county level natural population change.

Source: Components of population change (OFM)

Generally speaking, Washington counties had healthy natural population increases until the mid to late 1980s, and then they began sliding downward.

There seems to be a fascinating correlation in this particular data that deserves more exploration. The leading counties in this trend seem to follow a particular model. The counties that led the trend in this decline fall into two general groups: Pacific, Wahkiakum, Clallam, and Jefferson (declining Olympic Peninsula timber counties) and Garfield and Columbia (tiny upper Snake farming communities).

Bill and Tony Norton and the criminalizing of candidate names in Washington State

At the eleventh hour, a similar name appeared in the candidate filing for what was poised to be a contentious political contest. Rumors swirled and recriminations between the men ignited over two elections. Throughout 1942 and 1943, two men vied for the Democratic nomination for King County Sheriff and later for Seattle City Council, fueling a saga that inspired legislation aimed at clarifying such pooperhousery, which still carries weight today.

Just last week, conservative activist Glen Morgan orchestrated the filing of two other men named Robert Ferguson, sharing the name with the state Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Bob Ferguson. Both men withdrew their candidacies by Monday’s deadline, citing the original Ferguson’s reference to a 1943 law that prohibited poophousing similar-name campaigns.

In spring 1943, Tony Norton, a former Seattle Police Chief and sheriff’s department captain, had filed to succeed an outgoing sheriff.

Meanwhile, William Norton held a seat on the Seattle City Council and chaired its public safety committee.

Although Tony Norton had a well-established campaign, announcing his filing in March 1942, it was City Councilmember Bill Norton who managed to submit his candidacy just in time. Tony suspected foul play:

“I approached Bill Norton, and he denied any involvement in such a scheme. Even Norton’s acquaintances echoed similar sentiments. Yet, to my surprise, Norton filed, leaving the public to draw its own conclusions.”

To his credit, Bill Norton conducted what could now be viewed as a genuine campaign. Advertisements for his candidacy appeared in the Seattle Times, highlighting his grasp of modern policing, efforts in public safety on the city council, and a commitment to good governance.

In the 1942 Democratic primary for King County Sheriff, the Nortons finished third and fourth, respectively. Had all Norton supporters consolidated their votes, they would have surpassed the leading Democratic candidate by several thousand votes. Nonetheless, Harlan Callahan, the leading Republican contender, outpaced even the combined Norton vote by several thousand.

When Tony Norton challenged Bill Norton for his city council seat in early 1943, it was Bill’s turn to retaliate. He pointed to a municipal league statement alleging that Tony Norton, in his roles as both Seattle Police Chief and a King County sheriff captain, was “long identified with lax law enforcement in King County.”

Tony Norton’s advertisements struck a notably different tone, urging “WAKE UP, LABOR!” and warning that “Voting liberal is crucial to preserving your rights, as the reactionaries will vote!”

In the March primary, Tony Norton finished a distant fifth. The top three finishers were automatically elected (which is an interesting election system that we don’t use today), showcasing the potential impact of similar names on the race. The top two candidates received 28,000 and 25,000 votes respectively. Incumbent Bill Norton secured a somewhat distant third with over 19,000 votes, potentially harmed by some of the 11,000 votes Tony Norton garnered in fifth place.

Amidst the heated city council race, one of Seattle’s most influential politicians metaphorically slammed his hand on the table, demanding that the Nortons “knock it off.” Representative John L. O’Brien, who would later serve as Speaker of the House in the 1950s and have the state office building housing the House of Representatives named after him, introduced HB 57. This bill was a resurrection of an earlier failed attempt in 1941, apparently reignited by the Battle of the Nortons.

Interestingly, the 1941 bill was part of a larger reform package that aimed to overhaul Washington’s entire election system, which still retained the Blanket Primary system. Prior to the current Top Two system, voters could participate in an open partisan primary where they could vote for their preferred candidate from any major party. The 1941 reform proposed keeping voters in one lane and, in some cases, establishing a state-sanctioned endorsement process for political parties.

HB 57 was signed into law just over a week after the Seattle City Council primary, effectively curbing the Norton strategy of electoral poophousery for decades.

In a peculiar epilogue to the saga, Tony Norton passed away in September 1943 while undergoing emergency surgery in Okanagan County.

Re-examining the out-of-town (or just corporate) real estate investment in Thurston County

Back in July 2021, I took a deep dive into the number of houses that were owned by corporate out-of-town investors. What I found then was the scale of investment was within the bandwidth of what could be expected.

It turns out I chose about the least opportune time to take a snapshot of corporations buying single-family homes. I didn’t track it at the time, but 2021 and 2022 were the largest years for this kind of transaction in the records I found. My first look was just a bit too early to catch it.

In this analysis, I will take a look at the four largest corporate owners of single family homes in Thurston County. I’ve been trying hard for months to finish this post, so the data I used is a few months out of date (January 2024). I assume nothing major has happened since then.

Counterintuitively, two of the four corporations are headquartered here in Thurston County: Rob Rice Homes and Walter Cox Company. The other two are out-of-town corporations, Invitation Homes (from Dallas) and Home Partners (Chicago). That said, their portfolios are on a completely different scale.

Prior to 2016, Rob Rice and Walter Cox were pretty much the only institutional buyers in Thurston County. Home Partners began to purchase in 2016 and then really took off in 2021. Invitation Homes not only appeared on the scene in 2022, but dominated the market, changing the scale altogether. Their 121 homes purchased just in 2022 was just a couple dozen shy of all the homes purchased by the top four since 1995.

It is worth noting that while Invitation dominated, Walter Cox (headquartered in Lacey) also bought more homes in 2022 than they had in any other year.

Comparing these purchases of the top four across the entire housing transactions in the county, you see the percentage go from barely perceptible to actually measurable (above 3 percent of all transactions) in 2022.

What is interesting is 2022 was not necessarily a banner year in home sales in Thurston County. The year prior was the all-time peak, with 2022 representing a cyclical slide down. These purchases also came at a time when mortgage rates were sliding up. The average price was also still climbing in 2022. These three combined: total sales sliding down, mortgage costs increasing with the climb in sale prices not abating, seemed to have combined to mean a mixture of circumstances that benefited corporate purchasers.

Despite this, the out-of-town ownership level in Thurston County (not counting our two local owners) is not high compared to the rest of the country. The Owned Away From Home analysis by Regrid:

Let’s talk geography:

Generally speaking, all the top four are clustered towards the edges of the northern Thurston County cities, especially towards southern Lacey and Hawks Prairie. There are some definite clusters:

  • Home Partners and Invitation are pretty typical, but with strong clusters in Hawks Prairie.
  • Almost all of Walter Cox houses are in two or three neighborhoods along College in Lacey.
  • Rob Rice follows a similar pattern, but with a broader reach out towards Tumwater.

Years built

This is interesting, because unlike the hockey stick of the purchase-by-year chart, the homes built-by-year is different. While there is a peak in newer homes by local Rob Rice in 2022 and 2023, most of the homes purchased have an average age of at least 10 years. Meaning, even though they’re newer than the average home in Thurston, they weren’t being bought directly from developers, but by individual sellers.

I’m not sure if I’m ready for a total revamp of my opinion about corporate ownership of single family homes. I feel there’s a bit of classist hand wringing about this phenomenon that doesn’t exist for people living in apartments owned by large out-of-town corporations. Additionally, apartments aren’t for everyone and buying isn’t for everyone. Not everyone lives in a place long enough to make buying a home make a lot of sense. And we shouldn’t relegate those folks to apartment living if they don’t want to. So, the moral framing of corporate ownership of single family homes doesn’t do it for me.

That said, a recent discussion in the Strong Towns community makes an argument that I do find compelling. That this isn’t an issue on a broad countywide or national level, but rather on the neighborhood level. Additionally, it can theoretically be a problem, especially with out-of-town owners causing a decline in the economic fate of a neighborhood. And, we know that corporate ownership in Thurston County is clustered in certain neighborhoods, so it is worth exploring that risk.

Getting back to the Regrid research, they find a correlation between household incomes and out of town ownership. They created a map that compares incomes against out of town ownership. Again, they didn’t measure all corporate ownership, just the ones that weren’t near where they owned homes. In Thurston County, they found one neighborhood in West Olympia that had a high correlation between low incomes and high out-of-town ownership:

What is interesting is that the neighborhoods with high clusters of corporate ownership in Hawks Prairie and south of Yelm Highway in eastern Lacey that aren’t on this map.

What further research I would like to see is taking an even finer comb to the Thurston data and measure parcel-by-parcel in the really high cluster neighborhoods and see what developments have the highest percentage of out of town ownership. Now that I think of it, it woudn’t be that difficult, but it is a measure for another post.

Why Do Young People Vote Less? Reframing the Narrative Through Brain Development

This isn’t normally what you come to this blog for. But I wanted to share an essay I have been working on for a few months on youth voting:

Implications of Brain Science on Youth Voting

There’s tons more context below, but my main point of posting this essay it to get input. So, read on, but also read the essay and let me know what you think. Comments are on in the essay itself.

My experiences during the 2020 election prompted me to re-examine two persistent themes:

  1. The stubbornly low voter turnout among those under 40 and
  2. The ongoing wonder of brain development, an aspect I’ve observed firsthand as I cruise through my 40s and my own children approach adulthood.

My social media often echoes during elections with despair over young voter apathy, with cries of “Why don’t they care?” practically handing the future over to “the old people.” However, my years immersed in local government and political discourse have led to a new question: are we asking the right questions about youth participation?

This is not an exhaustive academic study, though I do cite relevant scholarly evidence. Rather, it is an exploration informed by my own experience. I’ve been a local newspaper reporter, I’ve done a local politics blog as a hobbyist, I have co-hosted a local politics podcast and served as a library trustee, I’ve been deeply engaged in the civic sphere. Currently, I am in a communications role for a local office elections office. So, this essay is not a thorough academic study, but framed on years of accumulated wealth of firsthand observations.

The point is: what if brain development holds a key to understanding the youth voting conundrum? Between the ages of 20 and 40, crucial non-cognitive skills – resilience, self-control, and decision-making – essential for navigating the complexities of voting, undergo significant maturation. This might explain the existing age gap in voter participation and render traditional solutions, such as early civic education, somewhat inadequate.

This suggests we may need to consider alternative approaches. Could compulsory voting, a wider spectrum of political choices, or even non-voting forms of participation like town halls prove more effective in engaging younger citizens?

Like I said, this isn’t normally what I post on this blog. I took the time to do some research and frame my thoughts, but I’m mostly interested in feedback. You can drop a comment here, comment on the essay itself, or contact me some other way to let me know if you think I’m heading in the wrong direction or whatever.

What statewide partisan identification could mean for 2024 elections and beyond

Washington voters seem increasingly engaged in politics, yet not through stronger party identification. This could spell trouble for Republicans, as it hasn’t translated into significant gains for them.

I’ve been tracking party identification data in Washington for years, and the past six years have revealed some intriguing trends. 

Link to my spreadsheet here

Since Washington doesn’t register by party, partisan identity is fluid and personal, constantly evolving based on individual choice or poll responses.

Overall, Democratic identification has steadily grown since the 1990s, becoming dominant in the past decade. Republican identification has consistently shrunk during this period, while the independent category has also declined, albeit at a slower pace.

But the data gets interesting when we dig deeper. For clarity, I’ve grouped the trends by Presidential eras, reflecting the nationalization of politics and its influence on state-level partisan identity.

A Peek at Two Recent Eras:

Obama era: Both Republican and Democratic identification declined, with independents becoming the plurality during Obama’s second term.

Trump era: Independent identification plummeted over 14 points in four years, with Democrats gaining the most (8.25%) and Republicans gaining less (1.25%).

Biden’s Early Presidency:

Now, after three years of Biden in office, clear trends emerge:

  • Democratic identification remains stable despite fluctuations among independents and Republicans.
  • Republicans have gained 1.70% since Biden, while independents have gained 6.73%. Notably, Democratic identification has only dropped 0.11% during this period.

The Mystery of Missing Responses:

The key lies in a rarely reported fourth category: “did not respond.” More people have started answering the party identification question again during Biden’s presidency, and those responses vary across polls. However, one thing is consistent: voters are re-engaging with the question.

Not All Roses for Republicans:

While Republicans and independents may be recovering some lost ground, it’s significant that those returning to the question aren’t siding with either party. Democrats still hold a comfortable lead in identification, despite the movement among other groups.

Looking Ahead:

If Biden is re-elected, a repeat of the Obama era endgame is possible. Independents might become the largest group statewide, while Democrats maintain their lead or decline slightly. During Obama’s presidency, this coincided with a Republican decline (-2.56%) and a rapid independent surge (+6.76%).

In conclusion, Washington voters are indeed becoming more politically engaged, but not necessarily through traditional party affiliation. This trend holds both opportunities and challenges for different political groups, with the potential for further shifts in the state’s political landscape.

The increase in Independent ID during the Obama era resulted in a unique phenomenon in Thurston County: local candidates successfully running and winning without either party label. This strategy has shown staying power, exemplified by incumbents like Gary Edwards retaining their seats. However, since the Trump era’s decline of the independent category, partisan-backed candidates like Tye Menser have unseated independents, and independents in open seats have struggled. The increase again during a potential Biden second presidency could mean a repeat of this trend.

This suggests that while independents might thrive in local, county-level races where statewide political norms hold less sway, a different breed of candidate would be needed to harness the potential surge in independent identification and launch a successful campaign for statewide or legislative office.

After “turn in your ballot on the last day” rhetoric, late ballots more than tripled and trended Republican

Vote on the last day advice from disinformation sources like Dr. Douglas Frank spread in Washington’s Third Congressional District last year.


When Joe Kent lost in an extremely close race last year, it followed months of advice from the candidate and others to Republican voters: submit your ballot at the last minute. This advice drew from the candidate’s experience in the August 2022 Primary, where Kent passed his opponent in the days after the first count, indicating that late voters propelled him over the top.

However, when Kent lost in the general, many people scrutinized the impact of the “vote late” advice.

Conservatives in the Southwest Washington district quickly reacted, with some asserting that the strategy of late voting did not help. In fact, the candidate himself reversed course just weeks after the election, explaining precisely why waiting to vote is a bad idea.

Essentially, life can get in the way. If you want to do something, do it early. Don’t wait and increase the chances that something else will stop you.

It’s also worth noting that the conspiracy theory underlying the “vote late” advice is baseless.

But, what I wanted to find out is whether the rhetoric had an impact on voter behavior. So, I analyzed available data on rejections and precinct results from the Secretary of State’s office for 2020 and 2022 in the WA3 and compared them side-by-side.

Two notable findings emerged:

Firstly, the number of late ballots more than tripled, despite a decline of 100,000 voters in the contest. In the 2020 election, with over 417,000 people casting ballots in the WA3, only 252 submitted ballots late. In 2022, despite a lower turnout of around 319,000 voters, 866 ballots were submitted late.

Here is the data file I worked from.

Second, late ballots shifted Republican between 2020 and 2022.

In 2020, voters in Democratic precincts were more likely to return ballots late.

In 2022, the trend line was much flatter.

An increase in late ballots from Republican precincts drove the overall increase in late ballots.

The bottom line is, though, the difference between the two candidates was more than 2,000 votes. While this is astronomically close, it is more than twice the difference in late votes that were not counted. That said, we obviously don’t have a count of possible Republican voters that didn’t even turn in a ballot because they realized they waited too long.

« Older posts

© 2024 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑