Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: washington democrats (Page 1 of 3)

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

December 2, 2024 / / 1 Comment

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.

5 reasons Bill Bryant could run as an Independent

April 29, 2016 / / 0 Comments

It sure is a little (R) up there:

1. Use Bud Blake as a template.

A couple of years back an unknown Independent, with deep support from conservatives throughout Thurston County, upset a sitting county commissioner. How did Bud Blake do it?

Basically, in every precinct in Thurston County, from the most liberal to the most conservative, he used the Independent brand to beat the average Republican vote just two years before. In fact, some of Blake’s best returns vs. a stand-in Republican average came in some very liberal districts.

The short lesson of Budd Blake in 2014 in Thurston County: party ID can mean a great deal to voters. And, people like the idea of an independent.

It seemed that there was a group of voters that didn’t like the idea of voting for a Republican, but were plenty happy to vote for someone who acted and talked like a Republican, but called himself and independent.

2. Bill Bryant is not locked in as a Republican.

He has until the filing deadline on May 20th to lock in his actual party preference.

3. Bryant could use the Top Two primary to build a financially formidable independent campaign.

And because Washington uses a Top Two primary, Bryant doesn’t actually need to be affiliated with a major party to move along. He simply needs to build a financially stable campaign and build his name recognition statewide to get through the primary onto the general election ballot. And, Bryant has raised $1.4 to Governor Jay Inslee’s $4 million. So, at least he’s in the ballpark.

The problem is timing. The May 20th deadline for filing is just four days before the Presidential primary in Washington State. If Trump is predicted to win the Washington Primary, would Bryant buck the tide of Republican primary voters?

4. Organized Republicans aren’t exactly running towards Trump.

The Democratic Party in Washington State ready to tar him with his party’s presumptive standard bearer. But, it seems like a lot of Republicans are trying to keep their distance from Trump.

No doubt their reticence was influenced by the polls and prognostications that a Trump candidacy could have a damaging domino effect on them and other GOP candidates. The theory is independent voters will be turned off by Trump and vote for a Democratic president, then continue voting against Republican candidates down the ballot.

An Elway Poll released earlier this month found 55 percent said they would vote against a congressional candidate in Washington who endorsed Donald Trump. 

Although the poll didn’t ask about candidates for state offices, Democratic Party operatives drool at the possibility of a coming landslide of victories in legislative races.

At every opportunity, they are pressing Republican candidates to reveal their presidential choice.

“If you’re a member of the Democratic Party state committee, every Republican candidate’s middle name is Trump,” pollster Stuart Elway said.

Unless of course, Bryant doesn’t end up becoming a Republican candidate.

So, possibly Bryant could still raise money from conservatives not hung up on party names. And, even though I doubt the Thurston County Republicans were super happy Bud Blake spurned their party, conservatives in the county still gave him enough to win.

5. The ultimate non-establishment candidate

So, here’s the crazy thing, and I admit this doesn’t exactly make sense, but what better way to show that you’re surfing into the anti-establishment wave by dropping your major party identification? Even when the party is nominating the establishmentarian-in-chief? Bill Bryant is such a rebel, he’s going to rebel against the rebel.


Here’s one last sort of bonus thought.

Between Republicans, Democrats and Independents, what is the largest political group in Washington?

According to a 2012 poll (I know, four years ago), the largest group is Independents. And, that number has been growing steadily since 2004. They’ve actually been in first place in Washington State since 2008 and in the mix since the start of the poll period.

More importantly, actual Republicans only made up 23 percent.

It isn’t about a primary vs. a caucus, it really just is about what’s best for the party

March 2, 2015 / / 0 Comments

The proposal by Secretary of State Kim Wyman to hold a presidential nominating primary in Washington came with one interesting wrinkle. The partisan preferences of individual voters would become public. 

Now, I am leaning on my memory of previous caucus vs. primary fights, but this is the crux of the debate. Primaries are fine (according to the parties) but, they should serve the parties, not the voters. In this case, its a matter of making the primaries closed to only partisans. Or, at least partisans that will declare themselves publicly. 

In that case, the parties get nice updated lists of registered voters that will pick a side. And, those voters will get mailed to, hit up for donations and cajoled into supporting the parties and candidates.

And, unless those lists are strong (and with cross over voting allowed under the old system, they’re not) its not worth it for the parties to go along (at least in large part). And, this is how we get the caucuses.

Because, if the parties can’t get mailing lists, they should at least get volunteers.

This old presentation from the 2007/08 presidential season really spelled it out for me. While partisans will often talk about the grass-roots and participatory nature of the caucuses, what they’re really about is foot soldier recruitment. If you find someone who is excited to attend a caucus, a good number of those folks will be good for other work.

From the presentation: 

Every four years thousands of new Democrats attend the caucuses.

Hundreds of them work on that year’s campaign for President, Governor, Congress, Legislature, and down the ticket.

After the election dozens of these new recruits come around to our monthly meetings.

By February or March or April a handful of new recruits are active in their local Democratic party.

Don’t get me wrong. I’d rather have this political party than one that depends on mailings and over the air ads. It isn’t bad to get people involved in politics and recruit foot soldiers. Some of my happiest and fulfilling public moments were at Democratic party meetings. Its good stuff.

But, don’t also mistake that if the parties do commit to closed primaries here, that they’re going to replace the excitement of the caucuses with some other sort of grass-roots event. It will not happen. They delegates will be chosen by a state-funded primary, all the energy from the caucuses will be lost.

Is running a primary opponent against Baird (or any other Dem who voted against health care) a bad idea?

November 17, 2009 / / 0 Comments

In the last week or so, I’ve heard some amazement about Rep. Brian Baird’s vote against the health care package in the house. This is amazingly similar to the shock that local Dems felt over two years ago when Baird announced he was going to support a Republican plan in Iraq.

Baird ended up facing a somewhat weak opponent who couldn’t rally enough support to win the primary or a vote of Precinct Committee Officers to win the nomination.

If he ends up facing a much stronger Republican (he smoked his opponent in 2008) or more than token Democratic opposition, its interesting to see folks reactions. You would think that a city council-member from the most liberal corner of Baird’s district would rip into him, but no.

Says Joe Hyer (sorry for the long cut and paste but this came over email):

I have heard a lot in the past two weeks about our Congressman, Brian Baird…most of it negative. And I have to say, I have been a little bit surprised. I support health care reform- check that, reform doesn’t go far enough, I support a health care revolution. I think it should be universal, accessible, and cover everyone.

I also believe that we will have NO WAY to achieve this or any other goal (strong education, a social service net, a healthy environment, infrastructure, etc) if our economy fails, or our government goes bankrupt. We are seeing TRILLION dollar deficits at this point … when just 5 years ago, we were criticizing those who caused deficits of a few hundred million. The long term economic costs of a deficit this size are monumental. Couple that to the unfunded mandate of health care for our veterans returning from the War, social security, and our falling apart infrastructure … and the federal budget becomes FAR more significant of an issue than any other we face.
If we cannot finance solutions, then we cannot solve ANY of our problems in this country.

And the federal deficit and national debt or massive, massive problems that will stifle growth, eliminate our chance to solve problems, and potentially cause an economic collapse on a global scale. You can only print money for so long before someone asks if it is worth anything. Yes, most of this debt was created under republican Presidents … but that’s neither here nor there at this point- it’s our debt, and we have to deal with it.

I have not heard anyone disagreeing with Brian Baird’s REASONING on the health care vote. Let’s know HOW MUCH IT COSTS before we approve a package. Sure it’s only estimates … but if we are going to increase the deficit with this package, perhaps it creates a stronger argument to scale back our foreign military commitments in the next two years. Perhaps it indicates we need stronger revenue streams to offset this. The real issue- the DEBT and size of the DEFICIT, is going to be underlying ANY initiatives the president wants to accomplish.

Over the last 30 years, the data shows that Democrats are fiscally conservative on spending and taxes, and Republicans are building up huge debts and deficits. So why is it that the perception in this country is that republicans are fiscally conservative, and democrats are ‘tax and spend’. It’s 100% incorrect based on the data…but perception is almost always created by things other than facts and data. The reason, I think, is that on key issues, we don’t get the full analysis on costs, then the Republicans use it against us in the next election cycle. We cannot afford to have this reputation moving into the future. We ARE the party of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, and we need to keep proving it our citizens.

I have also heard negativity towards Brian Baird because he didn’t ‘support the president’. I have to say, I don’t remember Obama asking for ‘yes men’. In fact, I remember quite the opposite. I remember a campaign where differing opinions were valued, where dissent is a part of coming to the best solution. I remember an intelligent campaign that suggested all points of view should be counted and considered, because that’s what open dialogue and debate are about. The last president was all about ‘yes men’ and falling into line when required…and I don’t remember those years as ones history will look kindly on. I think Brian supports our President, supports change … but ALSO believes strongly that Congress should only pass good legislation that works, and that is fiscally responsible.

Hence his fight for adequate time to read a bill before voting on it. Hence his argument that we should know what something costs before we pass it.

I have known Brian Baird for more than a decade, and consider him a friend, a leader, and an intelligent public servant. I have disagreed with him on issues, and defended him on others. I have lobbied him for more than 5 years on health care issues and I know one thing for certain- he is committed to health care reform, to lowering costs and increasing access, and to ensuring everyone has coverage. I didn’t read this Health Care bill, and its thousands of pages. I don’t know what it will cost us, or its impact on the deficit. That’s why I have Brian, to be my expert. The citizens of Olympia don’t want to know everything about sewer policy or zero waste…that’s why they hire me, to be their expert. In the same way, I don’t know the details of the health care bill, and whether or not there’s a fatal flaw in the details. In the press release from my Congressman, I read that we did not yet know the full costs and budget impacts of this proposal, so he was unable to support it. If they gave less than 3 days before a vote, I would ALSO have expected his no vote, because he is committed to a good government process on all legislation.

It seems to me we need good process in DC…it’s been lacking for a long time. Openness and transparency, good fiscal analysis, sound legislation- this is what we, as democrats, value most. I am not sure, in the end, if I agree with Brian’s reasons for voting against the bill. I am not sure how I would have voted if I were in his place. I do know that he is a strong advocate for our district, for the environment, for the economy, for our communities, and I know that he is committed to being fiscally responsible, open and transparent, and restoring the citizen’s faith on how Congress conducts business. I also know he listens…having changed his mind myself on several issues over the years.

Given all that, while I may disagree with him from time to time, I am still proud to say Brian Baird is OUR Congressman, and he has my support.

Joe Hyer
TCD treasurer and Fiscal Conservative

I have a problem with Joe’s point that Olympians don’t want to know about waste policy. Actually, I do. I may not read it, but I want to know its there for me to read at some point. I do expect Joe to know more than me at any given time, but maybe that’s his point.

He basically says he understands Baird’s reasons for not voting for the bill.

And, now down in Utah, a former U.S. Senate candidate, Pete Ashdown, gives a long list of reasons he won’t be challenging a local Democrat who voted against the bill:

1. A Democrat who is more to the left than Jim Matheson could probably easily win a primary, maybe even settle this in convention, but in the end would lose the general election. I can think of no other county that exemplifies this more than Carbon County. This was traditionally a Democratic stronghold in Utah, but has gone Republican over the past decade. In 2006, Jim Matheson received 3,658 votes in Carbon County. In spite of canvassing Carbon County extensively and knocking on a few thousand doors, I received 2,255 votes. Conversely, Orrin Hatch rarely visits and received 2,408. I don’t see how deposing Jim Matheson would endear me to 1400+ people who otherwise voted for Senator Hatch.

…

3. In spite of Matheson’s votes, he is still warming a seat on the Democratic side of the aisle. 2010 is going to be Republicans trying to capitalize against President Obama’s agenda. Although I haven’t ruled out running in 2010, I don’t want to be contributing to the inevitable losses the Democratic party is going to face. If I was running instead of Matheson, the national GOP would pour resources into the race not because they care about Utah, but because they want their majority back.

4. In 2006, the Deseret News ran a poll on favorability ratings of Utah politicians. Matheson came out #1, higher than then Governor Jon Huntsman. Having him in office is a good thing for other Utah Democrats trying to get elected.

I think Ashdown’s reasons for not taking on Matheson are analogous to the same situation for any local Democrat and Baird. Losing the 3rd District would mean that folks that currently vote Democratic in Grays Harbor, Pacific and other coastal areas (not Lewis or rural Clark counties) are giving their vote to a Republican. These are traditionally rural Democratic areas that could arguably start trending Republican at any point.

Losing the 3rd could mean more than getting a Linda Smith back, it could mean shifting the political landscape in Western Washington.

And, I get this impression that people who aren’t all that politically motivated have a good impression of Baird. If he’s the standard bearer for Democrats in Southwest Washington, then its good for downticket Democrats.

Who wants a general election challenge (from HA)

June 13, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Back in the day David Goldstein didn’t like the Top Two primary, though he probably still doesn’t:

Supporters of the top-two primary, like Sec. of State Sam Reed, keep arguing that it offers voters more choice. Well, in the 36th LD, the district highlighted in the article, voters will be given the choice this November between a progressive Democrat and a liberal Democrat.

That quotes makes an interesting contrast to today’s post from Goldstein on challenging sitting Seattle legislative Dems from the left:

The irony is, we all know there’s a fair share of deadwood in the Seattle delegation, along with a handful legislators who simply aren’t as progressive as their constituents on a number of important issues, such as pay day lending, the homebuyers bill of rights, tax restructuring, and more. Indeed, start this conversation at nearly any political gathering, and the same names keep popping up again and again, the usual suspects of Democratic incumbents who deserve a serious, well-financed primary challenge, and who just might not survive should they face one.

A primary challenge is one thing. In the old days of actual party-based primaries a well healed incumbent could slap down an insurgent in September, well before the actual public discussion ever got going. And, with the primary in August now, the debate is even shorter in duration.

Most Democrats from Seattle, once they got past the primary, were able to coast through to November with token opposition from a Republican or maybe a Green. But now, a serious progressive insurgent Dem could challenge a sitting moderate Democrat all the way until November, pushing the discussion harder and actually giving voters in liberal Seattle districts a real choice from within the party.

I’m surprised Goldstein hasn’t seen this utility of the Top Two and is still calling for “primary” challenges, when it is really unlikely that a challenging Dem to totally knock off a sitting legislator in August.

Rich Nafiziger, state Democratic senate caucus chief of staff and blog father

December 24, 2008 / / 0 Comments

To me, there’s a striking resemblance between former Olympia school board member Richard Nafziger’s on-again-off-again blog and the new blog of the state Senate Democrats (mostly penned by majority leader Lisa Brown).

Makes a lot of sense for Nafziger to be Brown’s blog father, but the similar blogging styles almost makes you think that its Brown’s chief of staff that’s doing the blogging. Both write long (almost too long) and really smart discussion posts, rather than short, clippy newsy posts. I would assume that the short clipply post would better serve a legislative caucus blog.

Nafziger’s current personal blog has only two posts up on it, though he’s been blogging for at least three years. But, on the internet, nothing is really gone. I’ve subscribed to his blog since before he quit the school board, so I shared some of his old deleted posts here.

To me, it doesn’t matter at all if Nafziger is really doing the blogging. Good on him, good on the caucus, good on Brown.

The only thing I’d like to see improved is the length of the posts. In my internet reading habit, I’ve never been able to get my head around his posts in time to comment, though I’d like to.

How I calmed down and learned to like the idea that the Washington State Democrats won’t have a blog anyway

December 10, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Because politically centered blogs are just tunnel vision things anyway.

Ken does a good job pointing out tonight how the state Dems just really don’t get blogs. I have my own reasons for thinking this, mostly due to their RSS feeds being so transparently part of their web consultants site. I mean, if you can’t bother not broadcasting a feed from wa-democrats.org and not blueutopia.org, then its not really worth the facade at all of having your own website for the party.

But, in the end, Ken’s complaint that they should have included a geographically more diverse set of lefty blogs only goes half way.

Instead of reaching out to just political blogs, they should be reaching out to the blogs in their own backyards like Real Dupont, Exit 133, Olyblog, or West Seattle Blog.

This post is sort of my mea culpa to Terry Thompson who weirdly bemoaned blogs as the haven for the politically strident who never listened to anything that got in the way of their political truth.

Yeah, if the state party did a better job building a nice online community, it would be great. The Obama campaign proved that a well thought-out and well aimed online effort could build community and enhance a campaign.

But, what would be even better for a state party and a collection of locally elected Democrats, would be for them to get out on the community blogs and talk with the people who are already there.

Ask them what their priorities are. Write about what you’re doing and what you think is important and let them talk back to you. Lefty blogs will always want to carry your water, but community blogs are going to be the people who are deciding whether they want to vote for you.

« Older posts

© 2025 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

×