Podcast appearances and mentions of Washington Supreme Court

Mark Harmsworth of the Washington Policy Center argues that the Washington Supreme Court's decision to overturn Spokane's anti-camping initiative undermines both public safety and voter rights. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-spokanes-voter-approved-anti-camping-initiative-is-overturned-by-the-washington-supreme-court/ #homelessness #Spokane #publicsafety #affordablehousing #ClarkCountyWa #Washingtonstate #judicialactivism #localnews #MarkHarmsworth #WashingtonPolicyCenter

Investing in Bizarro World Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIAfIjKxr02sAztzlJNy1ug5bDvTVZkME&si=w2d_EF-B5jMo1dYD Subscribe to Investing In Bizarro World: @bizarroworld Programming Note: We're holding a free webinar on April 30th at 4pm ET during which we'll walk through the gold bull progression, what's coming next, and three picks with immediate catalysts. Gerardo is guaranteeing one of the three will double in the next year. There will also be live Q&A. The event is free to attend. It will stream at this link: https://bit.ly/3YU3Y1l And we'll send out emails before it starts. The free version of the 314th episode of Investing in Bizarro World is now published.Here's what was covered:Macro Musings - China says there are no trade negotiations underway — despite U.S. claims. Volatility remains elevated. Bond market pressure continues. Dollar weakens further, with strong inverse correlation to gold. No recession yet, but more chop expected until after earnings season.Market Takes - Gold rebounds looks ready to test $3,500 — possibly even $4,000. Silver flirting with a major breakout above $33.88. A close above $34 on a weekly or monthly chart would confirm. Copper now has $4 floor. Uranium names post big daily gains — signs of a bottom forming?Bizarro Banter - Administration insiders give private market guidance behind closed doors. Gerardo and Nick call out the blatant insider double standard. Klaus Schwab caught in a Davos handjob scandal. His downfall is symbolic of the broader collapse of globalism and institutional trust. Washington Supreme Court and Spokane Politicians ignore the will of the people. Premium Portfolio Picks - For paid listeners only. Subscribe here: https://bit.ly/4iDnq9E0:00 Introduction0:57 Macro Musings: More Tariff Tussles. S&P Volatility. Gold & Dollar.6:40 Market Takes: Time for Juniors. Copper. Uranium.17:56 Bizarro Banter: Bessent's Loose Lips. Klaus Schwab's Loose Hips. People's Will.29:25 Premium Portfolio Picks: A 2-cent Copper Stock. A Big Tariff Winner. A Contrarian Lithium Pick. You need to subscribe to Bizarro World Live to get this section. Upgrade here: https://bit.ly/4iDnq9EPLEASE NOTE: There are now two versions of this podcast. 1. Bizarro World Live — Pay $2 per episode to watch us record the podcast live every Thursday and get Premium Portfolio Picks every week. You can do that here: https://bit.ly/4iDnq9E2. Bizarro World Free — Published the Monday after the live recording with no Premium Portfolio Picks.Visit our website Daily Profit Cycle for more content like this and more! https://dailyprofitcycle.com/

Listen to the Daily Global #News from Grecian Echoes and WNTN 1550 AM - China raised duties on US goods to 125% - US to hike duties on Chinese goods to 145% - European Union finance ministers will brainstorm today how to use that time to reach a trade deal with Washington - Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador

(The Center Square) – Backers of Initiative 2066, which protects natural gas as an energy choice in Washington state, say they will take their case to the Washington Supreme Court after a judge's ruling last week that I-2066 is unconstitutional. On Friday, King County Superior Court Judge Sandra Widlan ruled the scope of I-2066, approved by voters in November, was too broad and violated the state Constitution's single-subject requirement. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx Read more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_cf9b94e2-c6ff-4219-abde-48b2f32a9aa7.html

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for March 20, 2025Washington Supreme Court Rules Signature Matching Can Be Used to Disqualify Ballots But Acknowledges It Impacts Too Many VotersWashington State implemented their universal vote-by-mail system in 2013, and built in signature-matching for identity verification.  A March ruling by the state supreme court upholds that rule as constitutional because voters can cure discrepancies. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Office of the Washington State Auditor - (2022) Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection RatesDemocracy Docket - (2021)  Washington Signature Matching Challenge (LULAC) Democracy Docket - Washington Supreme Court Upholds State's Ballot Signature Verification System Washington Supreme Court - Opinion in Vet Voice Foundation v. HobbsWashington State Standard - Washington Supreme Court upholds ballot signature verification systemWashington Secretary of State - Signature Verification & Compliance Tool Training ManualGroups Taking Action:LULAC, Vet Voice Foundation, The Washington Bus, El Centro de la RazaRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #StateofWashington #VotingRights #VotebyMail #SignatureVerification

How much of tonight’s lunar eclipse will Washingtonians be able to see? Russia has agreed in principle to ceasefire. US soccer is cracking down on abuse of youth referees. // LongForm: GUEST: Chris Sullivan on the latest text toll scan. // Quick Hit: The Washington Supreme Court just ruled on a case that could impact self-service retail.

The Washington state legislature is looking to ban guns in even more places. The Washington Supreme Court struck down a challenge to signature verification on ballots. ABC News is shutting down FiveThirtyEight along with other jobs cuts. // Big Local: A 3.9 earthquake struck Port Angeles. Everett police are looking for a man that tried to kidnap a woman. A WSU astronomer says we’re going to have a ‘blood moon’ next week. A Bremerton boat builder is struggling with pauses in federal funding. // You Pick the Topic: Scientists have created a “Colossal woolly mouse” in preparation for recreating the woolly mammoth.

3pm: Metro to resume bus fare inspections: What to expect // Washington Supreme Court hands landlords major victory after CARES Act challenge // Starbucks lays off 1,100 corporate employees as coffee chain streamlines // President Says Workers Who Don’t Respond to Musk’s Email Risk Being Fired // 'It's just chaos': Local TSA employee gets conflicting messaging about job justification query // I Stand Corrected - Ask, Tell, Correct, or Yell at John about anything // Thoughts on Trump’s approach to Ukraine // Zelenskyy refuses to sign Trump’s rare earths deal — but official says pact is close // Gen-Z has rediscovered sabbaticals; dubbed them “micro-retirements”

Second Amendment: May Washington prohibit high-capacity magazines? - Argued: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:57:29 EDT

On Dec. 5, in a move to enhance access to justice, the Supreme Court of the state of Washington issued a historic order authorizing a regulatory reform pilot program by which entities not owned by lawyers will be able to deliver legal services. The move makes Washington only the third state, after Utah and Arizona, to approve a comprehensive change to the longstanding rule that only entities owned by lawyers can practice law.  The pilot, which will last for 10 years, is designed to test whether entity regulation will increase access to justice by enhancing access to affordable and reliable legal and law-related services. Entities approved to operate under the pilot will be allowed to practice law, but only under strict conditions that limit the duration of their operations and that require active monitoring and oversight.  To discuss the development and details of this pilot, we are joined today by two guests representing the two organizations that proposed this pilot to the court and that will now be tasked with partnering to get it up and running. They are: Terra Nevitt, executive director of the Washington State Bar Association, and Craig Shank, a Washington lawyer and member of the Washington Supreme Court's Practice of Law Board.  Their share their perspectives on how this pilot could enhance access to justice and what the development means for regulatory reform more broadly.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Littler, local everywhere.  Steno, reliable court reporting with a revolutionary approach Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner).   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

The Washington Supreme Court is taking up the high-capacity magazine ban case, sparking debate on gun rights and public safety. Learn more about the pivotal legal arguments and the nationwide implications. Read the full story at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/wa-supreme-court-to-hear-high-capacity-magazine-ban-case-later-this-month on www.ClarkCountyToday.com. #ClarkCounty #WashingtonState #LocalNews #HighCapacityMagazines #GunRights

On this topical show re-air, Crystal welcomes Everett Maroon, Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart, for a conversation about their work in Southeast Washington using a harm reduction philosophy to support people, stabilize lives, & promote health and wellness in the community. Crystal and Everett chat about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities, the role that stigma plays in keeping people from the help they need, what harm reduction is and why it is important. They then review the recent roller coaster ride of Washington state's substance use disorder policy, starting with the Washington Supreme Court's Blake decision, followed by a temporary legislative fix, then an impasse at the end of last year's legislative session, and finally a middle-of-the-road deal that recriminalized simple drug possession in addition to newly making public drug use illegal. Crystal and Everett lament the missed opportunity to meaningfully change the system & the continued lack of treatment services relative to need, and wrap up with what can be done at the state and local level to address the opioid crisis.   Transcript and resources: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/everett-maroon-blue-mountain-heart-to-heart/ Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks and on X (formerly Twitter) at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii and X at @finchfrii. Find more information about Blue Mountain Heart to Heart at https://bluemountainheart2heart.wordpress.com/

Washington Supreme Court nixes ban on safe injection sites // Seattle is close to picking transportation chief // Movie Review – The Favourite // Guest Rachel Sutherland discusses temporary spending bill passed to hopefully avoid government shutdown // Hanna in studio talking about anti-gun stuff // Guest Mayor Jon Nehring discusses success of law enforcement embedded social worker program

Jason Schwarz, Director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and the Chair of Washington's Council on Public Defense, talks about new public defender caseload standards under consideration by the Washington Supreme Court to address the state's public defense crisis. The combination of public defenders working under decades-old caseload standards and lack of state funding have led to massive delays and staff exodus, creating an urgent need for reform to ensure justice for defendants, victims, and the community at large.   As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii.

Washington voters will decide next week is who will fill the lone open seat on the Washington Supreme Court. Supreme Court Position 2 is an open race - the incumbent, Justice Susan Owens, is retiring at the end of this year due to the state constitution's requirement that all justices retire after the year they turn 75. The position is non-partisan. Soundside is talking to both candidates vying for the seat on the state's highest court. Up first: attorney Sal Mungia. Mungia is a partner at Gordon Thomas Honeywell, a law firm based in Seattle and Tacoma. He has specialized in medical malpractice, serious injury, personal injury and real estate litigation. He has also served as the President of the Washington State Bar Association.  Guest: Sal Mungia, candidate for Washington Supreme Court Position 2. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Washington's criminal justice system has a big problem – a shortage of public defenders and prosecutors. Senator Mike Padden, a former judge and the Ranking Republican on the Senate Law and Justice Committee is the featured guest. Washington Supreme Court justices take testimony on proposed changes to public defender standards – Learn you how you […] The post The Elephant in the Dome Podcast: Shortage of public defenders and prosecutors – a criminal justice crisis appeared first on Senate Republican Caucus.

Carleen Johnson from The Center Square Washington reports on the surprising developments surrounding Washington Supreme Court rulings on key voter initiatives. Supporters were caught off guard, learning of the legal challenges only hours before the court's decisions. Read the full story at https://tinyurl.com/mr3swfat #WashingtonSupremeCourt #voterinitiatives #Let'sGoWashington #I2109 #I2117 #I2124 #WACares #localnews #ClarkCountyWa

Send us a Text Message.Chino Y Chicano host Enrique Cerna talks with Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González about the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Presidential immunity, ethical questions involving justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, declining public trust of the court, and President Biden's proposed reforms for the high court. González updates the efforts of the Washington's Supreme Court to address institutional racism. There is also talk of earrings. Yes, earrings. Listen and find out why that became a topic of conversation.  Read:https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalezRead: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/obituaries/chinatown-international-district-activist-matt-chan-dead-at-71/Hear Rick Shenkman on the BBC Radio Program Sideways:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdg0Read: https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-stuck-with-nixon-heres-why-science-said-i-did-itRead: https://www.washcog.org/in-the-news/your-right-to-knowRead: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-legislatures-sunshine-committee-has-fallen-into-darkness/Read: https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2024/feb/29/weakening-of-state-public-records-act-affects-your-right-to-know-every-day/Read: https://www.futuromediagroup.org/suave-pulitzer-prize/Read: https://pulitzercenter.org/people/maria-hinojosaRead: https://murrow.wsu.edu/symposium/the-edward-r-murrow-achievement-award/Read: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sinclair-nixes-univision-affiliation-ending-local-spanish-broadcasts/Read: https://www.chronline.com/stories/group-of-washington-state-faith-and-community-leaders-call-for-cease-fire-in-israel-hamas-war,329305Read: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/lahaina-fire-families.html#:~:text=The%20F.B.I.,survivors%20wonder%20what%20comes%20next.: Read:https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/apr/15/fentanyl-involved-in-more-...

Washington voters this year are contemplating a wide-open race to replace the state's Attorney General. The Attorney General manages the state's largest public law firm, overseeing a staff of attorneys charged with representing public agencies and defending the rights of Washington residents, covering issues including consumer protection, civil rights, environmental regulations, and antitrust.  This year's race is an especially interesting one. The current Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, is running for governor. That means that without an incumbent, the office will see its first new A.G. in 12 years.  This week Soundside is interviewing the three candidates who all want to be the state's next top lawyer.  First up: Pete Serrano is a city council member serving as mayor of Pasco, Washington. He's a co-founder of the legal nonprofit, The Silent Majority Foundation, and he's endorsed in the Attorney General race by the Washington GOP.  Guests: Pete Serrano, city council member serving as mayor of Pasco, Washington. Related Links: What is an attorney general? They're more attorney than general Who are the three candidates running for WA attorney general? Washington Supreme Court will hear Gator's Custom Guns case on high-capacity magazine ban The Republican who wants to be Washington's next attorney general See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The public could learn within a few months or sooner if the Washington Supreme Court will take up the Gator's Custom Guns case related to the state's ban on the buying or selling of high-capacity magazines. https://tinyurl.com/2tmjdxxd #TheCenterSquareWashington #WashingtonSupremeCourt #GatorsCustomGunsCase #WashingtonStateBan #BuyingOrSelling #HighCapacityMagazines #SilentMajorityFoundation #PeteSerrano #HighCapMagazineBanCase #KelsoGunRetailer #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

What’s Trending: The Washington Supreme Court Commissioner says he will decide next week whether a ban on high-capacity firearm magazines will stay in place. Washington state unemployment continues to rise. Ohio’s Attorney General has shot down a Democrat scheme to get Joe Biden on the ballot past the deadline. // Jew hating Eastlake High School students warn each other to cover faces and not talk to Zionists. USC Valedictorian Repeatedly Dodges Whether She Endorses ‘Complete Abolishment’ of Israel as She Shared It on Instagram. // I guess we’re pretending these bathrooms aren’t for the homeless drug addicts.  

In a landmark ruling out of the state of Washington, a judge decided that the prohibition on magazines capable of holding in excess of 10 rounds contradicts the constitution. However, while the decision was a significant victory for defenders of the Second Amendment, the celebration was short-lived. The Washington Supreme Court promptly responded with an emergency appeal that temporarily halted the judge's decision, ensuring the controversial ban remains in place for now. The unfolding drama began on a seemingly ordinary Monday when Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge, Gary Bashor, made an announcement that sent ripples through the national conversation on gun control. The legal challenge had been brought by a local gun shop within the state. They had taken the bold step to sue the governing body of their state after an arguably contentious law was passed in 2022 prohibiting possession of magazines that carry more than a designated 10 rounds. During the hearing, Judge Bashor swept aside the arguments put forth by the state. These arguments maintained that these high-capacity magazines were not a requisite for self-defense, and that the legislative changes were grounded in logic and safety. Bashor's 55-page decision thoroughly refuted these claims. Deep within his comprehensive written judgment, Bashor elucidated on a key finding. The larger capacity magazines, referred to as LCMS in legal and political circles, came under the category of 'arms' according to the State Constitution. This fact was crucial since it meant these items were indeed used and owned by the general public for lawful motives. Judge Gary Bashor, who took up the mantle of judge in this rural belt back in 2011, did not restrict his rationale to the current state constitution. In his landmark ruling, Bashor delved deeper and analysed the intent of the Founding Fathers themselves when it came to firearms. Bashor keenly stated, 'The Founding Fathers demonstrated no desire to restrict gun rights. While they couldn't possibly know about the specific weaponry available in today's world, they implicitly acknowledged and anticipated technological progress in armament.' His words echoed the sentiments of those who ardently uphold the Second Amendment. However, things took a distinct turn after Bashor's ruling. Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston of Washington State made a decisive move. Aligning with Ferguson, he chose to uphold the controversial law while the appeal proceedings continued. This clampdown on magazine size is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Over the past several years, other stringent gun control measures have been enacted by Washington's Democratic-controlled legislature in alignment with the state's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee. These measures encompass prohibitions with far-reaching effects, including a ban on the sale of AR-15s along with rifles bearing similar technological specifications. Those supportive of such sweeping changes argue that these rules are necessary for public safety, while detractors feel they infringe upon the Second Amendment rights. Through all this, the debate around gun control in Washington State and across America writ large shines a light on the intricate yet vitally important nature of balancing constitutional rights and personal safety. What emerges is a substantial challenge to reconcile these two deeply ingrained values in today's increasingly concerned society. It's evident that the recent ruling from Judge Bashor, despite drawing ire from some sections and applause from others, represents a critical moment in this broader discussion. Naturally, the court's decisions have the potential to serve as a precedent and significantly sway the ongoing narrative around gun control. At present, all eyes remain on the Washington State Supreme Court as it deliberates the appeal. Their decision will likely have a far-reaching impact, coloring the nation's discourse and legislation on gun control for years to come. Yet, through it all, we are reminded of the value and meaning of our Constitution and the continuous task of understanding and adapting it to our evolving society. This case represents yet another critical juncture in the American narrative as we grapple with the difficult task of maintaining a balance between personal freedoms and social responsibilities in the modern age. In conclusion, irrespective of one's viewpoint on the matter, it's essential to recognize that issues such as the magazine restriction debate form the fiber of our democratic process. They challenge us, they confront us, and they ultimately help us shape the future contours of our nation, contributing towards an evolving definition of 'We the People' in the 21st century. Real News Now Website Connect with Real News Now on Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealNewsNowApp/ X Twitter: https://twitter.com/realnewsapp Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realnews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realnewsnowapp Threads: https://www.threads.net/@realnews/ Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/realnewsnow Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@RealNews YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@realnewsnowapp End Wokeness: https://endthewokeness.com #realnewsnow   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shohei Ohtani's interpreter is fired, due to theft allegations, supposedly stemming from a gambling addiction; Kyle Rittenhouse's speaking event at the University of Memphis devolves into expected chaos following his exit; Don Lemon is out after a short lived stint at X, potentially due to a ridiculous reported list of demands for his employment; Washington Supreme Court removes the requirement to pass the bar exam for potential incoming lawyers, all due to a ridiculous rationale; Trump's “bloodbath” comments are intentionally twisted and lied about by the media This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arkmedia.substack.com

Jenna Ellis (00:36) - Another spending bill is being passed on Capitol Hill, Congressman Chip Roy believes conservatives need to stand firm and stop allowing democrats to use Americans' money on whatever they choose to fund. Hogan Gidley (10:04) - The RNC promises legal ballot harvesting as a part of its new strategy to take on the Democrats. Lara Trump stated, “We've been playing checkers and the democrats have been playing chess”. is this a good move for the Republican party? Jenna Ellis (18:54)  - White House aide to former President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro, was sentenced to four months in prison for his refusal to comply with a subpoena from the Jan. 6 Committee. How did we get to this point, and what does this conviction mean for others? Josh Hammer (29:38, 36:08) - The Washington Supreme Court rules that prospective lawyers will no longer have to take the bar exam, calling it “racist”, and claiming the test is unfair to marginalized groups. Plus Josh shares the details of his upcoming book discussing the aftermath of October 7th and rampant antisemitism that's taken over this country and others.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2021, the Washington Supreme handed down one of the most important rulings in the history of the state. For decades, people in Washington were convicted under the state's felony drug possession law without any requirement they had knowledge of the drugs they possessed. The court struck down this strict liability law and opened the door for hundreds of thousands of people to be released, resentenced, or have their case vacated. Today, Hunter spoke with Grace O'Connor, Nat Jacob, and Kimonti Carter, the team at the Washington Office of Public Defense, who work on helping people navigate their options in the wake of Blake v State.   Guests: Grace O'Connor, Former Blake Managing Defense Attorney, Washington Office of Public Defense Nat Jacob, Blake Triage Attorney, Washington Office of Public Defense Kimonti Carter, Blake Community Outreach Specialist, Washington Office of Public Defense     Resources: Blake v State https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf Contact the Blake Team Call 800-414-6064 (ext 218) Email blake@opd.wa.gov How to Vacate Conviction https://opd.wa.gov/find-legal-help-and-information/vacate-drug-possession-convictions-state-v-blake Since I Been Down https://www.sinceibeendown.com/ https://www.kimonticarter.com/teach Redemption Project of Washington https://www.redemptionwa.org/ Seattle Clemency Project https://www.seattleclemencyproject.org/         Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  

On this topical show, Crystal welcomes Everett Maroon, Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart, for a conversation about their work in Southeast Washington using a harm reduction philosophy to support people, stabilize lives, & promote health and wellness in the community. Crystal and Everett chat about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities, the role that stigma plays in keeping people from the help they need, what harm reduction is and why it is important. They then review the recent roller coaster ride of Washington state's substance use disorder policy, starting with the Washington Supreme Court's Blake decision, followed by a temporary legislative fix, then an impasse at the end of last year's legislative session, and finally a middle-of-the-road deal that recriminalized simple drug possession in addition to newly making public drug use illegal. Crystal and Everett lament the missed opportunity to meaningfully change the system & the continued lack of treatment services relative to need, and wrap up with what can be done at the state and local level to address the opioid crisis. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find more information about Blue Mountain Heart to Heart at https://bluemountainheart2heart.wordpress.com/.   Everett Maroon Everett is the Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart. He supervises their program areas and is also responsible for fundraising, development, and evaluation of the agency. He has overseen a broad expansion of HIV case management services into Asotin and Garfield counties,  harm reduction programs into the Tri-Cities and Clarkston, and an innovative, outpatient opioid recovery program across six counties in Southeast Washington. Everett co-authored the now-completed Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health's (GCACH) Opioid Resource Network, and contributed to the Washington State Opioid Strategy. He serves as a technical assistance provider on the Law Enforcement-Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program expansion in Washington State. Everett also is a state commissioner on the LGBTQ Commission. He has worked on quality improvement projects for various federal and state agencies for more than 28 years.   Resources Blue Mountain Heart to Heart   Eastern Washington Health Profile | Community Health and Spatial Epidemiology Lab at Washington State University   “Treating opioid disorder without meds more harmful than no treatment at all” by Mallory Locklear from YaleNews   “We Must Support People Who Use Substances, Not Punish Them. Here's How.” by Susan E. Collins, PhD for PubliCola   “New Law on Drug Possession, Use Takes Effect July 1, 2023” by Flannary Collins for Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington   Substance Use and Recovery Services Plan | Substance Use and Recovery Services Advisory Committee (SURSAC)   “Finally Addressing Blake Decision, Legislature Passes Punitive Drug Possession Bill” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola    “Legislators Continue Failed War on Drugs Approach in Blake Fix Bill” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   "WA's new drug law could help needle exchanges — or restrict them" by Andrew Engelson for Crosscut    Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm very pleased to be welcoming Everett Maroon, who's the Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart. Everett supervises the program areas of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart and is also responsible for fundraising, development, and evaluation of the agency. He has overseen a broad expansion of HIV case management services, harm reduction programs to the Tri-Cities and Clarkston areas, and an innovative outpatient opioid recovery program across six counties in Southeast Washington. Everett co-authored the now-completed Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health's Opioid Resource Network and contributed to the Washington State Opioid Strategy. He serves as a technical assistance provider on the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD, program in Washington state. Everett is also a co-chair of the Washington state LGBTQ Commission. He's worked on quality improvement projects for various federal and state agencies for more than 28 years. And Everett and I also had the opportunity to both serve on a steering committee for a statewide ballot initiative surrounding decriminalization of substances. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, Everett. [00:02:07] Everett Maroon: Thank you so much, Crystal. And it's really great to see you, and I appreciate having some time to talk with you today - so thank you. [00:02:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I just want to start off - what is Blue Mountain Heart to Heart? [00:02:21] Everett Maroon: Well, it's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Southeast Washington state based in Walla Walla. We also have an office in Kennewick and then another one in Clarkston - roughly 30 people on staff. And it was founded in 1985, originally as an HIV concern, where we probably helped about 250 people live and pass away with dignity at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Then was incorporated in 1991 - the organization moved into longer-term case management as the medications for HIV became more sophisticated and HIV went from being a death sentence to a chronic condition. And at that point, we began getting more involved in prevention of infectious disease, including HIV, hepatitis C, and STIs. I came along in about 2010, first as a grant writer and then as the executive director. And it really was notable to me - people would come in - if they had HIV, there was so much the state would do for them. And the state's interest was around public health - so if we keep people from being able to transmit this virus to other people, we'll keep the transmission rate low. In public health, we talk a lot about viral load - community viral load. And so you would add up the viral load of all the people living with HIV or AIDS in a community, and then that's the number that you get. And depending on how many people are in your community, you have a risk assessment for how much you should be concerned about HIV transmission in that community. Well, if you didn't have HIV and you came into my office, I had many more limitations on what I could do for you. Even if you were battling basically the same kinds of issues as people living with HIV had - unstable housing, lack of engagement in the workforce, mental health, substance use - all of these things rise up as things that destabilize people in their lives. Certainly systemic racism - the way that we invite so many foreign-born Latino farm workers to Washington state to pick our agricultural crops every year, but then pay them far below what a living wage would be. And we then expect that there's not going to be detrimental effects on those people. I think we all see that the state needs to do something different around supporting people who are here to make the state so profitable and make its agricultural sector so productive. So it really bothered me that - in one instance, because there was a transmissible disease associated with the potential client, we were all willing to put money into programs to support them. But then if they didn't, they just had the effects of the destabilizing forces around them and we weren't doing much. I really wanted to change that. I thought that we could get more investment in supporting people and stabilizing their lives and improving their wellness and health. And that that would be a good thing for everybody in the community, not just these people who were facing very serious gaps in resources and support. So we met as a board and a staff and changed our mission, amended a few things to it. And now our mission is really about helping people with a variety of different chronic diseases, including substance use disorder. There are certainly things to say about the limitations around the disease model for substance use, but when I'm thinking about federal and state funding for assistance programs, that model really helps create investment, financial support. So from 2010 to today, the agency has grown from about $150,000 in annual budget to about $4.1 million. We've gone from 2.5 FTEs a year to more than 30, and we have 14 case managers across 3 different case management programs. We have a drug user health equity program. And we still continue to have those prevention programs, but they're more aligned with case management. So we use a no-wrong-door approach here - no matter what your initial need is when you walk in, we try to see what other resources we can bring to bear to help that individual. So if you're coming in because you're using, or you need syringes for consuming - say, methamphetamine or something like that - you can also get nicotine cessation kits, you can get Plan B, you can get Naloxone because there may still be fentanyl in the substances you're consuming. We have a wound care clinic. We have a contingency management program for people who want to begin abstaining from methamphetamine. So no matter where someone's coming in, we have a variety of programs that we can try to support that person with. The harm reduction philosophy is one of the umbrella guiding value systems or philosophies for our work, even though we're doing some discrete specific activities for people. So that's, in a nutshell, what Heart to Heart is. We have a board of 9 and a staff of 30, and I think 28 of those positions are full-time. [00:07:47] Crystal Fincher: So who are you typically serving? [00:07:50] Everett Maroon: We see some diversity across our caseloads - it varies a little bit from program to program. I would say that we have somewhere around 55% are men and 45% are women. We do tend to see white, non-Hispanic people out here more often than not in our caseload, but we have about 12% of folks who are Hispanic and some other race - so white, mixed, African-American, Native. We see a lot of people on the far lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, I would say - and that varies a little bit from location to location. So when I look at who we've served in Clarkston, about 12% of our prevention clients tell us that they are unhoused and almost 40% of them are temporarily housed - so that could be like couch surfing or at a shelter. The unhoused number is highest for our Kennewick clients at 35.6%, so majority of people that we're serving in Kennewick are unhoused or temporarily housed. In Walla Walla, maybe about 20% of people are unhoused, but the people who are temporarily housed are in truly atrocious conditions. So there are a lot of people in Walla Walla living in someone else's shed or garage - they don't have access to plumbing, they don't have access to heat or air conditioning in the summer when it's 110 degrees out here. So there're definitely big stressors on the people that we're serving. A lot of the women that we're serving are in very abusive relationships, or they have experience being sex trafficked, or being made to participate in illegal activities in order to have a relationship or to have housing. So there are definitely gender differences in terms of what people are facing among our caseloads. Folks that are in some of the more rural areas that we serve with our mobile clinic - they are very concerned about other people in their small communities knowing what's going on with them. And so they're very reluctant to seek care because they don't want other people to know what they've been engaged in. And that is its own kind of barrier for them. [00:10:22] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And that being tied to the stigma that is causing so much shame, whether it's having HIV, an STI, substance use disorder - a variety of things where the stigma creates this shame cycle, which prevents people from seeking help, prevents people from getting better, and actually encourages the spread because of that and not being treated. Now, we met each other around the issue of substance use disorder. The landscape about how we deal with substance use disorder has changed over the years. Starting out, particularly with you being so engaged in so many different rural areas in Washington state, what have you seen or how has particularly the opioid epidemic impacted the communities you're working within? [00:11:15] Everett Maroon: I think that what you said about stigma is really relevant to answering this question. In large part, we see stigma coming in to sort of silence people and keep them away from seeking help. A 2019 study from Washington State University showed that in general, Eastern Washingtonians have a life expectancy of five fewer years than people living west of the Cascades. Part of the reason why is because of later dates of diagnosis, delayed care - those kinds of things add up for people en masse, and then we see a detriment to the outcomes for them. So if you don't get your cancer diagnosed until you're stage 3, your prognosis is worse than if you'd shown up really early in stage 1. The same kind of thing happens for people who are engaging in substance use. And just to be clear, many people use substances and don't become dependent on them. But when they do, it becomes very difficult very quickly for them to extract themselves on their own. Opioids in particular - because they so mimic this endorphin pathway that we all have as human beings - it's almost impossible for people to just will themselves to stop using because the withdrawal symptoms kick in so overwhelmingly that they just feel terrible. And so to deal with that, they use again. A different way of thinking about how people might seek help is to say it's going to be non-stigmatized for you to come into our office and say - I've been using fentanyl, I've been using meth, I've been using anything in front of me. What can we do today about reducing my use? There are very few places where somebody can walk into a doctor's office and say that and then be taken seriously and aided. When you're talking about rural environments, I think that the stereotype is that people in rural environments don't care about folks that are struggling with these issues. I see directly - I observe - it's that we have such a smaller, thinner resource infrastructure. It's that we have fewer providers. So if there's a problem with one provider, there might not be another one in your health insurance plan that you can go see. So now you got to either work with this person who says something stigmatizing to you, or you just don't do it. And if you return to this place of - Well, I'll just get through this myself. Well, we know that that's really not a good option for most people. It's not a realistic option for most people. So in my rural environment, what we've tried to do is build a trauma-informed, non-stigmatizing or anti-stigmatizing environment so that people know they can come in, tell us the God's honest truth about what's really going on with them. And we're going to start from whatever space zero is for them. So there're definitely folks who can tell us about a time they were entering treatment and then they relapsed and then they were kicked out of the program. Or due to relapse, they missed two appointments and then they were kicked out of the program. Where they admitted that even though they were getting Suboxone for their opioid dependence, they were still sometimes using meth on the weekends and then they were kicked out of the program. So we just believe in our harm reduction philosophy that - if we're not looking to dispose of people, but we're looking to retain them for future engagement, we're going to see better outcomes for them. Because we're going to walk with them as they stumble, because we acknowledge that that's part of what they're facing - occasional relapses and stumbles. And you can do that in an urban center and you can do it in a rural environment. We just have to have the commitment. [00:15:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, I've heard a lot of people have different conceptions and misconceptions about harm reduction, and hearing - Well, if you don't require people to be clean before you help them. If you don't use this as a stick to get them to do what is best for them, then we're really just enabling their problem. We're becoming part of the problem. - Why is that not true? And what is harm reduction and why is it important? [00:15:39] Everett Maroon: That enabling hypothesis is very persistent, almost as persistent as opioid use disorder - it's been around a long time. But when you look at the actual evidence for treatment - in fact, there was a study that just came out that showed that treatment without prescribing a medication is almost worthless. We really need to be thoughtful about what clients need. If somebody had a heart attack after having a heart attack six months ago, the cardiologist would not say to them - Well, you had another heart attack. I refuse to see you anymore. If someone had type 2 diabetes and they walked into the doctor's office and the doctor said - Oh, your blood sugar is really high. You must not be following my treatment plan. I'm just going to cut off all of your insulin and see how you do. We would cite that provider for malpractice. But somehow when we're talking about meeting clients where they are or patients where they are around substance use, people rise up from the woodwork and say - You're enabling them. All we're trying to do is keep people engaged in care so that we don't lose them and we take away opportunities for them to make behavior change. If we're continuing to engage with people and motivating them to come in to see us, then we can provide them with more opportunities to stabilize their lives. If you stop trying to force a particular outcome on a client and you give them room to sort out what their priorities are, you're actually teaching them how to cope with stress the way we want to see people cope with stress - which is in an adaptive, positive way. When we get patronizing with people or we prescribe for people - You must do it this way, you cannot do it that way. Well, I see a lot of people who have overdosed and passed away waiting four weeks or more to get an assessment so they can get into treatment. So I know there has to be more ways for us to reach out to people where they're already at, so that we're not just losing them forever because nobody's going to get better from something if they're not even here anymore. So for me, what harm reduction means is - I'm using a respectful position as a professional to support people how ever they initially show up and to continually be there for them so that we can help them move through these stages of change that we know people go through when they're dealing with some behavioral health challenge. So if we allow people to come in and say - I relapsed last weekend - and they know that they can say that because we're not going to throw them out of the program for that. Then we can say - Okay, what do you think was the root cause of why you used again? And then you can sit down and say - Well, they wanted to please somebody, or it was offered to them and they weren't ready for it to be offered to them, or they haven't really broken out of this friend group that's always telling them to use it, or maybe a trauma happened to them. And then we can respond to that root cause and help them find another way to get through that if that ever happens to them again. If we had just said no to them and pulled a hard line on it, they would do no learning, we wouldn't learn as professionals, and we would lose that client. Life isn't perfect and people aren't perfect, so our programs should not demand that of them - in the same way that we don't demand it of other people who are living with conditions that we don't stigmatize like we stigmatize SUD. So harm reduction is very easily misunderstood, but it is also the most studied public health intervention of the last 30 years, with more than 1,500 different research efforts pointed at it. And what it has continually shown is that it is better at engaging people and retaining people and getting behavior change. So if you want to get concerned about a syringe service program in a particular neighborhood, do know that people that are going to it are five times as likely to get into recovery as people who don't utilize it. So I think that there are many ways that we could have this knee-jerk reaction against harm reduction, but at the end of the day - it gets people into recovery, it helps them reduce their use, it helps them stabilize the things in their life that were very out of control, and it helps keep them safer so that they encounter fewer infections and sequelae associated with having those infections. So we're here to help reduce the traffic on first responders and hospital systems and law enforcement. And I will just always sing the praises of the harm reduction approach because I see it work every single day. [00:20:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, like you, I've seen it work up close. You are certainly doing the work, have so much experience in seeing it work. But to your point, we have so much evidence. We have so much data pointing towards this being the most effective method. And it is largely because of stigma and because these deeply entrenched narratives and beliefs - largely by people who don't know many people who've been in this situation, or who hear an anecdote that is happy and was the case for one person but is not addressing what the majority of people are experiencing and what is shown is helpful. And principally, addiction is not a logical activity - people are not making inherently logical decisions. You can't just say - Well, I've decided that this person is going to be hitting rock bottom. They need to hit rock bottom in order to really get things together, and certainly the logical response to something going bad is to prevent the things that caused it from going bad and changing behavior. - And nothing about the reality of substance use disorder functions like that. And our refusal to come to grips with that from a policy perspective is playing out and seeing worse outcomes on our streets in many situations, worse outcomes in our communities - both people housed and unhoused, with great support without great support - it is just such a challenge. And I appreciate people in your position, organizations like yours, who are engaged in really trying to do that. Now, in Washington state, we've had a bit of a roller coaster ride over the past few years when it comes to substance use disorder policy, drug policy, and how we've approached it. Which kicked off this roller coaster ride with the Blake decision by our State Supreme Court, which basically decriminalized personal possession of all substances in our state, which kicked off a reaction that said - Oh, but drugs are bad and we have an opioid crisis. So clearly we need to reinstitute these laws, crack down and reinstitute penalties, and make sure we know this is criminal behavior and we can lock people up for engaging in personal use, now use in public places. - What is your opinion of that approach? [00:23:06] Everett Maroon: Well, the State Supreme Court was not trying to decriminalize drug possession in Washington state. It was saying that the statute as written, which was different from all 49 other states in the United States, was not constitutional. Because there was no other statute that they could turn to to say this is how law enforcement should enforce simple drug possession, we then did not have a statute on the books that was valid for detaining people around that for, I think, eight weeks. You will note that the state of Washington did not completely fall apart in those eight weeks with no drug possession statute. But it is an extremely common statute to cite people on, which is why it's costing the state millions and millions of dollars - I think seven figures, right? Eight figures. It's in the tens of millions of dollars. To re-adjudicate all of these sentences - because when you void the statute, you void all of those convictions that go back to the 1970s. So it was very commonly asserted in courts across the state of Washington - the statute around possession without intent - and so prosecutors did not want to not have something to turn to. When I talk to jailers and corrections staff, when I talk to many sheriff's deputies - the people who are actually on the ground - and many peace officers in city police departments, everybody knows that simply locking people away and arresting them and demanding accountability from them hasn't worked. If it had worked, we would not be here today. So people were really ready when the Blake decision came down, in my opinion, to do something different. But systems don't like system change. Systems are very stubborn and they want to stay in the track that they've been in, which is why reform is so difficult. So in the response that came immediately from Blake, they opened up a bill - even though it was now out of the timeline for the legislative cycle. So they made all these exceptions for themselves so that they could run a bill through. And that was - the engrossed Senate bill 5476 came out in 2021 and stood up a temporary measure. And they said this will sunset June 30th of 2023. And of course, by then, we'll have a new statute. We would never not attend to this. So they gave themselves a two-year window. Well, in 2023, the legislature was not decided on how to respond. Should it be back to a felony? Should it remain just a misdemeanor? Maybe it should be a gross misdemeanor. Maybe we shouldn't make this gross misdemeanor have a sentence of 364 days, but we'll have it make a sentence of 180 days. Maybe that's actually worse. So there was no real throughline in the policy debate around what to do for simple possession. Meanwhile, to the south of us, Oregon had - through ballot initiative - decriminalized all drugs. There's some evidence saying that's been a good thing for them, there's some evidence saying that hasn't been a good thing for them. Oregon is less than half the population of Washington state and has a much smaller revenue base. We've got very large corporations set up in Washington state that Oregon simply doesn't have, including Amazon and Boeing and many other big players, that give us a much bigger budget than Oregon gets. So I feel like it was maybe foreseeable that the legislative session would end without answering this question. Legislature, in the long year, ends in early May. So now they had less than two months before this statute was going to disappear. And I have heard from several people, why didn't we get there? The progressives ran out of the room and said - We can't vote for this. The GOP had decided they weren't going to vote for the bill as written because it wasn't enough about accountability, which is their new catchphrase for saying the onus is on the individual to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and not have a drug problem anymore. That left only the middle-of-the-road Democrats and they were not enough to carry the day on that vote. Well, then in the intersession between the special session that was called and the end of the regular session, there was a lot of dealmaking and communication. And what we got out of it were some of these middle-of-the-road ideas. So, in fact, it is now a gross misdemeanor with a 180-day sentence. It does still have a line into diversion programming - so instead of arrest, you can put somebody into the Recovery Navigator program that got set up by 5476. And they fixed some problems that were in the paraphernalia statute, so now it is clearly legal again to put out litmus tests to the public so they can test their substances for fentanyl and those things. The other thing it did was clarify for municipal officials - they can regulate some pieces of harm reduction activities or harm reduction-related activities, most notably around whether organizations or agencies can hand out safer smoking kits. This is an important question because when the pandemic hit, heroin dried up because shipping stopped, which meant smuggling stopped. And the world really got heroin from one notable place - Afghanistan - and when the poppies couldn't be processed anywhere because they couldn't get transported anywhere, China showed up with synthetic fentanyl precursors that Mexican cartels were really happy to turn into fentanyl. And rather than coming all the way from Afghanistan and around to Asia and then the United States, they could just be right next door to the United States. And so they flooded the markets in the U.S. with really cheaply made, very inconsistent fentanyl products. Fentanyl is so much more potent than heroin or any organic opioid. And fentanyl has a much shorter half-life, so people who I saw as participants who were making do with shooting up heroin 3 times a day, now were using fentanyl 30 times a day, and everything fell apart for them. They could not hold a job anymore. They couldn't manage relationships with their family. They couldn't stay housed. Because it was all about that next hit to delay the withdrawal symptoms, which were much worse on fentanyl than they ever felt on heroin. So we had 933 Narcan uses to reverse overdose in 2023, and we had 301 in 2021. So within two years, we saw the crisis hit a threefold increase - that is really astounding. It's horrifying. So King County, I think, has had a 47% increase in overdose fatalities in the last year. There are other places around the state that look more like 28% or 30%. But those are still terrible increases in fatality. It's not really clear where overdose as an event that maybe doesn't lead to a fatality is because many of these events don't ever get captured by first responder systems or hospital systems. But what I see from self-reports from our participants is that it's much, much worse. So I think it's good that the state is making these investments in diversion, but we really don't have the treatment bed capacity that the legislature is pointing people to go into. If everybody who wanted to be in treatment today could be in treatment today, there'd be enormous waiting lines. So we have to do a lot more - again, at the system level - and we have to lower the barriers to getting into treatment. So I'm really happy this year to be a part of the Bree Collective that is going to look at treatment reform for OUD. They did look at this in 2017, and this is the first time the Bree Collective has come back to look at the same issue again. But as you said earlier, so much has changed so rapidly that we need to return. [00:32:09] Crystal Fincher: As I look at that law and what happened with that law - one, I still mourn a little bit the opportunity that was there, but these things happen with policy all over the place. One of the things initially after that decision, the first Blake fix - because there are basically two attempts to fix it through legislation - is everyone seemed to agree, whether it was Republican, Democrat, progressive, conservative, that we don't have adequate detox capacity. We don't have adequate treatment capacity. And that requires a lot of investment and people wonder where they're going to get the money from - there's not universal agreement on that - but that we are lacking there. And part of what I heard from legislators with the intention after the first shot at the fix, where they applied the sunset, and there was - You know, evidence does point to more of a public health-based approach and less of a carceral approach to substance use disorder. But we don't have the infrastructure necessary to responsibly do that, so we need a stopgap in between. So we are providing these carceral solutions to this program with the hope that we take these two years - we really do a lot on adding capacity, making needed investments, and making sure the infrastructure is there so that when we do divert someone, there is treatment there for them to go. Now, the pandemic happened in that interim, which threw a lot of things off - it's not like people simply sat there and said, We plan to do nothing from the outset, this is just a whole red herring. But it didn't happen. And then politics happened and people got afraid of being called soft on crime and soft on drug use, basically. And that motivated some fear-based legislation or provisions. And so what we wound up with was - in the second fix - was less of a focus on diversion - they basically made that largely subject to prosecutorial discretion. Although they did, like you said, shore up paraphernalia concerns. But they did weaken the ability to reliably stand up harm reduction services and gave cities basically the latitude to say - We don't have to have these in our community - which is harmful because oftentimes, harm reduction services are where people who fall through the cracks of the other programs, people who are rejected from the other programs, people who people say - Well, they won't accept help. Well, they will from harm reduction services that are truly aligned with trying to help them as a person and meet them where they're at. So with this landscape that we have now, what has this done to you as a service provider and your ability to meet the needs of this community? [00:34:59] Everett Maroon: Let's be clear about what allowances they gave municipalities to affect the work of harm reduction organizations. The State Supreme Court still, very clearly, in 1988 said that giving people clean syringes and the associated other medical supplies is an essential public health program. So there's really nothing that municipalities can do to end actual syringe exchange, be it on a needs-based or a one-to-one-based exchange. There's nothing unlawful about it, and there's nothing that local government can do to stop that work. Where they can come in and say - No, you can't do this - is around the safer smoking kit provision and around litmus tests, because those are the newest things that have been added. Those were clearly not what the State Supreme Court was thinking about back in 1988. So what I've seen happen are harassment campaigns that have been semi-organized, that have made people fearful of going to SSP sites. And I've seen that when public health entities are doing those harm reduction programs, that you can defund those projects. And that stops the work there. But they still don't have the availability to come in and as a county commission or a planning commission for a city council, come in and say - You can't give out syringes to people. So they can't do that. And let's just note for a moment that the safer smoking kits - they're called things like crack pipes, which elicits this whole racist juggernaut that was put on people in the 1980s, again, because they were talked about in very racialized terms and very racist terms. Whereas people using a different form of cocaine just didn't face the same kinds of penalties and consequences. So it is a reminder to me that local government could have this effect on one kind of harm reduction activity and not another, that we're still operating through a very racist white supremacist lens here with regard to drug policy in Washington state. So for people who are thinking that they're acting agnostic to race and history of racism, I have news for you. You're not. You're still supporting those systems. I think it's very possible for harm reduction organizations to get legal representation - maybe through entities like the ACLU, but there's certainly other people around the country who are very concerned that harm reduction be able to continue unabated to support people through this deepening overdose crisis, who can help you make arguments like - this is a protected class of patients. So very clearly, people with opioid use disorder and substance use disorder are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. And so local government that doesn't have a lot of money should think very carefully about how to restrict - if their goal is to restrict - these operations, because they may very quickly run afoul of the ADA. Also, and I'm not a legal advisor - I just say it as someone who's already come up against these issues - they may also very easily run afoul of the Equal Protections Clause of the United States Constitution. And that is very important for them to think about because damages related to not being in compliance with that are very high, can be very high. And so I really would recommend that people in local government volunteer or at least take a tour of these harm reduction organizations in their midst, have a better understanding of what they're trying to do, and start to ask questions with those harm reductionists about how can we align your work with, say, the work of first responders, the work of law enforcement who are engaged in diversion? How can we help align it with people who are offering treatment in our areas? I would love to see communities around Washington state put together interagency workgroups to try to help respond to the crises that are local to them. Certainly every community has different kinds of resources, different kinds of limitations, different kinds of advantages, things that they've done when working together that have produced great things for their communities. This is one of those times when we really can come together and instead of pointing at each other saying - You're not doing enough or you're doing the wrong thing - we really can say - Wait a minute, these are our kids, our spouses, our neighbors, our co-workers, and we want to show up for them. So how can we do that? And if we all work to have a better understanding of each other, I think we're going to have much better responses on the ground than in simply looking to curtail this activity. [00:40:10] Crystal Fincher: I think sometimes we get into - we're looking at this from the outside, we're looking at the legislative session, and it is really simple to see - okay, they're entrenched in their interests, and we disagree, and therefore, they cannot be part of what a solution needs to be moving forward, or I can't work with them. Well, what I've seen - numerous examples across policy areas - of when people do sit down together and commit to listening to each other and understand that - Okay, we actually have a number of goals that align here. And how can we work together to make those happen is a really positive thing. Do you see examples of multi-agency responses working well in Washington? [00:40:55] Everett Maroon: Yeah, we even have one here in Walla Walla, that is run through our public health organization, and it's a behavioral health mapping program. And I think it's doing well to try to help figure out what can we - again, what resources can we wrap around people not necessarily in crisis, but near crisis, who may be in crisis at some point in the near future. I think co-responder programs are doing really well in various places around the state. And I think the world of the Let Everyone Advance with Dignity or Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion programs - I run two of them. And I see prosecutors and corrections officers and population health and case managers and DSHS all showing up to say - Okay, wait, we're going to - here's all the things we know about Sally and how can we help Sally today? And when you turn around and you get a phone call from someone, they say - Hey, I'm calling you from treatment and I'm feeling great. Or they say - Here's a photo of me. I got a photo from someone who was in the woods on the west side and they're holding their kid. And thanks so much, I never thought I'd get my kid back. And they're out in the woods with the mountains behind them - that can and does happen. I would not be such a champion for harm reduction if I didn't see it working all the time to help people reclaim their lives. But sometimes it's no longer appropriate for them to just try and do it themselves and do it just with their families, that they have maybe burned or lied to and all of that. It's better for them to work with professionals and then they can return and re-engage those systems that they thought they were alienated from. But I see it all the time and I know that we can do it and we have to dig in as communities. [00:42:37] Crystal Fincher: So we're currently in the midst of a legislative session. We have several cities and counties trying to deal with this in various ways. The state is trying to basically incrementally provide more capacity as they find and identify revenue to be able to do that. It's slower than all of us would like, certainly, but they are and have been moving towards that. What would your recommendation to legislators be this session? And what would your recommendation to local elected officials be for what can most meaningfully address this opioid crisis? [00:43:14] Everett Maroon: I think that local governments are well-suited to looking at their regulations around housing, capacity, zoning, and helping situate things like recovery houses, transition housing, places where people can go to restart. But as long as we are trying to do treatment and therapy and wraparound care for people who are unhoused, we're just fighting - we're fighting the tide with our little sandcastle. So we have to think about what those barriers to the outcomes we want to see really are. We certainly need specific housing for women fleeing abuse. We need specific housing for single men, but also families. We need to be able to help people step back up into more traditional housing over time. I think the state has a lot of priorities, and I appreciate that in Washington state, only a small amount of our budget is really actionable through discretionary means. There's so much that we have to spend on by statute or by ruling. And so it's a really difficult question, and I don't envy the legislators trying to tackle it. But when we try to take things little bit by little bit and we're not looking at the whole big picture, then we run into a lot of false starts and failures, and then people start to question if the approach is even right. I swear on all that's holy, the approach is right. But we can't get tens of thousands of people out of this situation very quickly if we don't have attention to housing, if we don't have treatment beds and treatment providers. If it takes three years to get the certification to be an SUDP, you are basically saying we have to wait three years for anything to change in Washington state. So we have to be thinking about workforce resources, housing, programs to help people deal with the trauma that they've picked up either on their way to using substances in a maladaptive way or after they started using them in a maladaptive way. I know people are going to say - Everett, where's the money come from? But I love this idea of health engagement hubs. But boy, the SURSAC committee asked for 10 sites and they got 2. It's just going to take us longer to figure out how to tweak that model to see how to make it work in as many places as possible. And I know also if we get people housed and we get them reengaged in the workforce and we get them back with their families, it's going to generate so much more revenue for the state. We're asking to front-load some programs so that we can get the benefits for a long time after. [00:46:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it is an issue of when and how you pay for it, fundamentally. Dealing with all of the symptoms of substance use disorder, all of the outcomes when you don't treat this in a way that is likely to lead to recovery. Then we see this manifesting in a wide variety of ways and making the other issues that we're dealing with from homelessness to the wealth divide to just everything that we're dealing with - education - so much harder, so much more expensive. We're placing this burden on ourselves, really. So we have to systemically look at getting ourselves out. I appreciate that. For people in their communities who are listening and just thinking - Okay, I hear this and we need to do something. I see this problem in my community. I know this is a problem. We need to do something. And the low-hanging fruit of something in communities seems to always be - Okay, we'll pass a law, we'll toughen a penalty. What can they look to or help with or get involved with in their communities that is likely to lead to a more positive outcome? [00:47:11] Everett Maroon: There are all kinds of things people can do based on their own ability, interest, time, and their connections. So if there's a leadership group in your town, join it. If there's a behavioral health committee through public health or city council, go to those meetings. Get a seat at the table. Pester people in your council and commissioner meetings. Ask them how they're working on it. Look at the budgets that are public budgets and ask the funders how do they evaluate the people who are providing services. There are lots of things that you can do to check in on how things are going. You can always write letters to the editor telling people about why they should themselves get involved in this work. You can volunteer at these organizations that are doing the work. And even if you just want to go be a candy striper at your local emergency department, there's a lot that you can do to help people there. Or if you're more into serving at a soup kitchen - consider that a lot of people who are living on the street don't have anybody say anything nice to them all day long. You can be that person. You can be the one who helps build a bridge back to their sense of humanity and connection to the community. So I worked in soup kitchens a lot, and I initially worked there because I had to do community service after shoplifting. So I will say that publicly - I was 22 years old and supremely stupid. But I learned so much from doing my time there. And then I continued to work at that soup kitchen for two or three years after that, because it just was so meaningful to me to be able to commune with people and help them feel okay about this one moment in their day. So I think shoplifting - the best thing I did for myself was get caught. [00:48:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, thank you, Everett, for your time today, for your wisdom and knowledge. We will continue to pay attention to how things progress through session, through different cities in the state - but really appreciate your experience and perspective here. [00:49:13] Everett Maroon: Thank you so much, Crystal. I appreciate the opportunity. [00:49:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Dave Wyman and Steve Raible talk with former Seahawks player Sam Adkins about their pasts in the NFL and how the sport has changed. For Take 2, Wyman and Raible discuss the Chargers’ firing of Brandon Staley and GM Tom Telesco and the Washington Supreme Court’s freezing of control of the PAC-12 assets. Next, Jen Mueller gives her thoughts on the Seahawks’ loss against the 49ers and how the Hawks’ desire to make flashy plays might be costing them, and in What’s Bugging Bob (but actually Dave) Raible and Wyman take us through some pet peeves.

The PAC 12 is controlled by Oregon State and Washington State after the Washington Supreme Court declined to review the lower court ruling giving control of the PAC 12 to Oregon State and Washington State. What does this mean for The PAC 12? What does this mean for the Mountain West Conference? The Advocates are experienced injury attorneys who will fight for the settlement you deserve without collecting a dime from you! Chat with an attorney NOW online for free! www.TheAdvocates.com The Monty Show is talking about the College Football Playoff responding to Florida Senator Rick Scott, who is looking for answers as to why Florida State Football was excluded from the CFB Playoff. Did the CFB Playoff get this answer right, or is the State of Florida just getting started in it's defense of Florida State Football? BuckedUp Energy are giving you 6 FREE Buck Shots! Click here to get them NOW! https://get.buckedup.com/ambbshlp1/?uid_m=426032&l_id=426 The Los Angeles Chargers got blown out by the Las Vegas Raiders last night, on Thursday Night Football, as a result the Los Angeles Chargers fired their head coach Brandon Staley, as well as GM Tom Telesco. Was this the right move for the Los Angeles Chargers? Speculation is already building around Jim Harbaugh and Bill Belichick taking over the Los Angeles Chargers football operations. Who is the right guy to take the Los Angeles Chargers in to the future? Are you playing PrizePicks? Get 100% deposit matching right now, click here: https://prizepicks.onelink.me/ivHR/MONTY The Utah Jazz are getting a large number of calls on Lauri Markkanen, should the Utah Jazz trade Lauri Markkanen, or should the Utah Jazz hang on to their best player and try to build a championship contender around Lauri Markkanen? Stop complaining about your job, your boss, your debt...start living the life you have always dreamed of NOW and sign up for a 30 day trial membership at Try Day Trading! www.TryDayTrading.Com/Monty Are you ready for an electric vehicle. Monty is likely going to buy a new electric car tomorrow as Mrs. Monty is all about it. Are EV's practical? Can you imagine a time when you are not buying gas anymore? What are the pro's and cons of driving EV's? The Advocates are experienced injury attorneys who will fight for the settlement you deserve without collecting a dime from you! Chat with an attorney NOW online for free! www.TheAdvocates.com

Blazers blasted by short-handed Jazz. Jaydn Ott's "gotcha" moment. Worst Day on the Web: re-framing Draymond Green as a sympathetic figure. Breaking news: Washington Supreme Court rules Oregon State & Washington State have control of the conference.

The Monty Show has the latest details on the PAC 2 Vs The PAC 12 as the Washington Supreme Court prepares to rule on the biggest legal battle in college football history. Can the PAC 2 survive if the the exiting 10 members of the PAC 12 win their legal dispute? What are the options for Oregon State and Washington State outside of keeping the PAC 12 name alive? BuckedUp Energy are giving you 6 FREE Buck Shots! Click here to get them NOW! https://get.buckedup.com/ambbshlp1/?uid_m=426032&l_id=426 Former NFL Punter Matt Araiza has been vindicated in a heinous case of false allegations and the loss of a career. Is it just another case of false accusations or does Matt Araiza have a legit case of damage o name and reputation after law enforcement and prosecutors said Matt Arazia was not involved in the alleged incident? Is there any difference between Matt Arazia and former LA Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer? Are you playing PrizePicks? Get 100% deposit matching right now, click here: https://prizepicks.onelink.me/ivHR/MONTY Should the Los Angeles Lakers be hanging NBA In-Season Tournament banners at Crypto.Com Arena? The Lakers are going to do just that, but as an organziation that has a policy against division championship banners, is the NBA In-Season Tournament worthy of a banner hanging next to the legendary NBA Championship banners hanging with names like Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, and Magic Johnson? Stop complaining about your job, your boss, your debt...start living the life you have always dreamed of NOW and sign up for a 30 day trial membership at Try Day Trading! www.TryDayTrading.Com/Monty Are you a fan of Ring doorbells. A new video is emerging of two guys sorting out an affair one is having with the others wife. Do you follow your ring doorbell? Do you pay attention to the motion notifications? Do you listen to the audio of your wife or husbands conversation on your front porch or back yard? The Advocates are experienced injury attorneys who will fight for the settlement you deserve without collecting a dime from you! Chat with an attorney NOW online for free! www.TheAdvocates.com

The Washington Supreme Court has been asked to consider discretionary review of a lower court order that currently grants control of the Pac-12 Conference to Washington State University and Oregon State University. On Tuesday, Supreme Court commissioner Michael E. Johnston granted a stay in proceedings based on emergency motions sought by the University of Washington and the Pac-12 itself. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/washington-in-focus/support

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts, Ashley Nerbovig! Ashley and Crystal discuss (and rant!) about continued and international outrage over Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders caught on body cam laughing about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the SPOG contract makes it near impossible to discipline or fire officers, Mayor Bruce Harrell's responsibility in creating the mess by voting for the contract as a City councilmember and in possibly getting us out of it by delivering a better one from the current negotiations, and how our recruiting problem is a culture problem in a competitive marketplace. The show then covers passage of the War on Drugs 2.0 bill by Seattle City Council, the start of the trial for three Tacoma officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis, and a rally held by Seattle City employees for fair pay. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Ashley Nerbovig, at @AshleyNerbovig. Resources “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle Police Officer Probably Won't Get Fired for Laughing about Jaahnavi Kandula's Death” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Police response time to Wing Luke Museum 911 calls raises questions about priorities” by Libby Denkmann and Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Seattle Police Officer Hurls Racist Slur at Chinese-American Neighbor” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Amid SPD controversy, Mayor Harrell leads with empathy” from Seattle Times Editorial Board   “Seattle Launches Drug War 2.0” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Council Passes New Law Empowering City Attorney to Prosecute People Who Use Drugs in Public” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   @daeshikjr on Twitter: “BREAKING: Seattle City Councilmembers revived a recently voted down bill that many community activists are calling War on Drugs 2.0. We spoke with Sara on her campaign trail about her experience with drugs, mushrooms, and what she hoped to accomplish while in office. …”   “Trial begins for Tacoma officers charged with killing Manuel Ellis” by Jared Brown from KNKX   “Trial of 3 Tacoma police officers accused of killing Manuel Ellis in 2020 gets underway” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune   “Historic trial begins for 3 officers charged in killing of Manny Ellis” by Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times   @tacoma_action on Twitter: “Here's how you can support the family of Manuel Ellis during the trial…”   Trial Information for State v. Burbank, Collins and Rankine | Pierce County Courts & Law    “City Workers Rally Their Asses Off” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 2 candidates, Tanya Woo and Tammy Morales. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts - and rocking that coverage - Ashley Nerbovig. Hello. [00:01:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Hey, Crystal - thanks. Hi. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Glad to have you on the show. We have no shortage of things to talk about and particularly this week where everything public safety was exploding, imploding, just all over the place. I want to start off talking about a story that is now making international headlines - the release of the video of an SPD officer, a SPOG executive, mocking the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by another policeman while she was just a pedestrian just walking and run over by a policeman who - it didn't seem like he had his lights and sirens on, going over 70 miles per hour. Just such a tragedy in the first place, and then outrage was the dominant feeling nationally, internationally when that video came out. What is going to happen or what does it look like is going to happen? You wrote a great piece this week about that. [00:02:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, he's not gonna get fired - for sure - unless something wildly out of the normal process happens. And even if that does, the arbitration process is such that they would look at the SPOG contract and be like - There was nothing in this that he did that's actually fireable. - and it's super frustrating to watch. And in that story, I break down how we've seen these cases before - that cops have said really outrageous stuff, or even done something pretty outrageous, or something that the public looks at as pretty outrageous - and the reaction has been either it's a written reprimand or it's unsustained findings. One of the examples I gave was that there was multiple officers in one car who - one of them said - they accelerate toward protesters, people can be heard to be laughing. And so one of them says - I effing hate these people - or something along those lines. And because they couldn't narrow it in and prove who said it, and none of the cops inside said who said it - it's frustrating, but it also makes sense when you read the SPOG contract - because they have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence, which is more than 50%, which sounds like a pretty low standard to hop over. But actually, I think they did a review of a bunch of different cops' policies on what they have to prove to require discipline across the country and SPD is in a very small minority - the majority of people have something that's lower or at a preponderance of evidence, and our standard is right above it. You see all of this outrage, and then you see Andrew Lewis and Lisa Herbold and Mayor Harrell and SPOG all say, essentially - We want to watch the OPA process, we're excited to watch that investigation. - as if they don't know that anyone reading the SPOG contract, anyone who's read enough OPA cases knows that this is going to end in the cop continuing to be on the force. And to some extent, you can make the argument that if this was one isolated comment, maybe it wouldn't be a firing that was justified. But when you look at his entire career, and then when you also look at what the actual other punishments are, right? You can get suspended, but you don't have that suspension served consecutively - you can serve it throughout a year. So it means that - the whole point of having a suspension is that they don't get paid, and it hurts their bottom line, and it's something to avoid. If you're just serving out a 15-day suspension over a year, and then you're making it up with tons of overtime, what are the consequences for cops in this city? And the answer is that our police accountability systems do not have actual consequences for our officers right now. [00:05:28] Crystal Fincher: Not at all. And it's infuriating. And this has kicked off a conversation that we've had before - just talking about the SPOG contract and the importance of that - there are a lot of people who are new here who weren't paying attention several years ago. There was an attempt that the City of Seattle - the council in particular - attempted to do this. They passed police accountability legislation that tightened that up. But then the current SPOG contract that's in place - was approved by Mayor Harrell on the council, by the way, who voted for the current contract that is currently handcuffing him and preventing him from being able to do anything about this - that superseded many of the City ordinances that dealt with this. And one thing that a lot of people don't know is that contract can supersede City law. So the things that the City thinks is happening, the process that we have - our democratic, our initiative process, the council process - all falls by the wayside when this is approved. And at the time, this was approved on a narrow vote - this was not, the conversation leading up to the approval of this current contract was not like - Oh, this looks great, it's fine. Lorena González infamously toiled over the vote that she was going to do, and later said that she regretted voting to approving it. But they were warned that this was going to happen. They were warned that moving backwards on accountability was going to produce really unsavory results. And lo and behold, here we are. So once again, we're in a situation where everyone - almost everyone - agrees. Most members of the public, of the national community, international community agree this is egregious. This is unacceptable. And the City's handcuffed because of this current contract. And I just want people to be aware that the next contract is currently being negotiated. The mayor's office - the same mayor who approved this current contract - is currently negotiating this next contract. And is Bruce Harrell going to ensure that something like this can't happen again with no remedy, or recourse, or consequence? That's really going to be up to how this contract is negotiated and structured. I don't know what's going to happen with this officer in this incident - he has a long record himself of issues, complaints - and I don't know what's happening with that is going to go through this process. But the executive's office, the council who will ultimately have to approve this contract does have a say in whether or not something like this can happen again. And I think they owe the residents of the city assurances that this shouldn't happen. We're seeing so many of these examples. This isn't the first example of a death mocked - it's just the first one that we have on video that's public. There was a tombstone before, there's been social media posts before. And also the fact that this was, I believe, VP of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. When you have leaders doing this - similar to the assistant police chief in Kent who displayed literal Nazi memorabilia - that speaks to culture. These are leaders. These are people dictating what we have here. And tangentially, and this is going on while we're having a conversation about police being short-staffed, while we're having a conversation about how hard it is to recruit - after the city has thrown money and recruitment bonuses and retainment bonuses at people. And can we just acknowledge that someone looking at this, now that they have the choice to join any police department, basically, they want to - they're all hiring - why would they join Seattle? This is the recruiting problem here. It's this culture. It's this continued drumbeat of toxic, distasteful stuff. [00:09:06] Ashley Nerbovig: I think you're right about it being a culture problem. But I also think that the strength of our SPOG contract - you could make an argument that these are some of the most protected City employees. And it's across the board that people don't want to be cops. And it makes sense because even if you take away all of the controversies, local governments overall are struggling right now to recruit people for any job. And then on top of it, you're talking about a job that requires a lot of no work from home - we've had a complete culture shift in what we value about work. And I think when you look at what the job of being a cop is, it's you have to live in a certain location, basically, you can live - although Auderer lives in Olympia, I think, so you can live far away - but you have to be able to go to work in-person. And then on top of it, you're tied to all of this really negative associations that we have with cops, and this shift in how we've thought about cops. And you're competing in a really tight job market where there's a lot of really - yes, you get a lot of money being a Seattle police officer, but that requires a lot of overtime. You can make that same money just like having a normal 40-hour workweek if you work something tech, and it can also be more flexible and more remote. I just think that the problem is exactly that being a cop is not appealing, and we can't change that - no one wants these jobs. And so why are we not talking about what people do want to work and starting from that place of - people do want to help people. I think a lot of cops in those positions talk about reshifting budget priorities, and that would mean changing their jobs. But cops were the first people to tell me that they didn't want to be social workers, that they weren't trying to do social work - and that they felt like they didn't have the tools and they weren't the people to be doing mental health intervention, or drug abuse intervention. Or homelessness intervention. You can't help someone unsheltered when you're a cop. The only thing cops can do is jail. I thought something really interesting - I know this is something we're going to talk about in a bit - and I really want to say something that I thought about with the SPOG contract. One of the things that I can't remember if it was Teresa Mosqueda or Morales who said it, but one of them was like - If we aren't funding these treatment options - when they were talking about the drug vote - If we aren't funding these treatment options, and we aren't funding these diversion programs, the only thing cops are going to be able to do if they want to get someone off the street is put them in jail. And I think that people have this idea that cops have other options, but that's their tool. It's not a choice for them. The only solution for cops is to arrest - that is their main job activity. And just this idea that people don't want these jobs, they are not effective for the problems that we have, and yet we have this desperation - and Bruce Harrell has this desperation to cling to tough-on-crime policies. And it's dumb. And you don't see any solutions, but people like to pretend like they saw some improvement - when they just like the feeling of, oh - you don't see anything change when you put a tough-on-crime policy. There's this idea that all of our - anytime we do something that's like violence intervention or like a community-based approach - that we don't see the results very quickly. And it always is so funny to me, because I'm like, you don't see - no one in their day-to-day life, if we tomorrow said you can arrest - other than maybe someone who went downtown and all of the homeless people, we can't even put anyone in the King County Jail. So I don't know what they're talking about right now, but you don't actually see a marked improvement - you just get a shift in media narratives - that's all that changes, really, in my opinion. [00:12:49] Crystal Fincher: This is the same thing that we're doing - and your point is exactly correct - we're only funding one thing. And what you fund, what you put resources to, is what you're going to have. We are so desperately short of other support services, behavioral health support services. And there are entities in the process of addressing that, right? Absolutely frustrating that it's not here now, there is some work being done there. So progress is being made largely at the county level and regionally. But this is not going to work. This is the same old thing. The thing that I find troubling, particularly as a progressive political consultant, is that this makes passing progressive policy harder. Because if you dress something up like progressive policy - Oh, it's really important that we treat root causes. And yeah, we all believe it. - and they all say that until it's time to actually put their money where their mouth is, to actually do the thing, to implement it. And then what we get is this warmed-over piece of legislation that does one of the things - yes, we can arrest - and makes it harder than it was before to do the other things. And it was astronomically hard before. We know what's going to happen with this. So the real question is, so what are they going to blame for the failure of this next? What excuse is coming up next? I talk to a lot of people, lay people, some people - I just like hearing an unfiltered opinion of someone who's not an insidery insider and paying attention to all the policy and stuff. And you would be shocked by how many people who are - they don't consider themselves super leftist, probably general Democrats, but they don't really pay attention to much - who are under the impression that Seattle's progressive city council has run amok. And it's like, when it comes to public safety, they are not passing progressive policy. Unfortunately, the conservative council - that is the policy that we have and that we've continued. And when everybody rushes to put that label on it - we're going to see a lot of political communication coming up soon, where I'm sure everybody is going to call themselves a progressive, probably pragmatic progressive, responsible progressive - but like they cling to that word and they want to present their policy is that. But when it's not, all it does is hurt actual progressive policy. So it's important for people to stand up and be like - No, we see that, and we see that it's not what the community is demanding and asking for. It's just really frustrating. We should probably get back to some of this news a little bit. [00:15:02] Ashley Nerbovig: There's just one last thing I want to say about Danny Westneat - this is going back a couple topics, but it was something that you said about the SPOG contract and that this is the leadership of SPOG. And Danny had a - bless his heart, he tried, probably - I quote tweeted it when I read the first couple of graphs. And then I went back and read his whole column about Auderer - I can't even say his last name - but the SPOG VP's comments. And he said quite a few things that were just absolutely ridiculous, where he talks about how SPOG uses public safety as a bargaining chip and says essentially - Oh, it'd be a shame if something happened to this beautiful city of yours. And then he goes on to give them that bargaining chip and say that Seattle desperately needs more cops. And then he goes to talking about how - he names a city that basically did defund because they also broke up their cop union. And it's just such a wild series of thoughts. And he concludes it on - SPOG needs to clean house. And it's so frustrating - even if you're just thinking of it logically - if you are a member of SPOG, and your vice president has gotten out of this many OPA investigations with little to no punishment - you don't think they know who is leading them? That's who I want as my union vice president - I want someone who's gotten away with a bunch of stuff - that is how you stay safe and stay protected - and who's going to clean house - the leadership? The leadership is the problem. Anyway, I just wanted to fully round that out by giving Danny like a 2 out of 5 stars on that column. [00:16:35] Crystal Fincher: There are a lot of people who are like - Wow, okay, didn't think there was going to be a day where many of them agreed with Danny Westneat. He got some of the way there. I think one of the challenges with that is a tendency to view unions as separate from workers, and the union as separate from the cops. They are elected by their peers in the union - this is representative of the culture, this is the result of them saying these are the people we feel best represent us. And this is what it is. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is - but here we are. And it's hard for me to separate SPOG versus police because SPOG is police. And it's just time we had a serious conversation about real accountability. And it's a tangible conversation - there is someone responsible for this, there is an intervention that can work here - we can negotiate this. It's up to the mayor, the people on negotiating committee, it's up to the council who's going to approve this. This doesn't just happen - they're permitted to happen by a contract that is in place. And if we're unhappy with it, and if City Hall can't see that the people are unhappy with a contract that enables this, the question is - particularly for Bruce Harrell, who is the boss of the police department - they literally report to him, police chief literally reports to him, direct report, his responsibility. What is he going to do now? Is he going to respond to this and say, I'm going to ensure this doesn't happen again? Because that's a buck-stops-here attitude that is normally expected of an executive. That's the job. What is he going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again? How is he going to live up to his word that he's going to improve the culture and improve public safety? We're waiting. And it seems like they're just permitting this. They're just - Oh, that's too bad. [00:18:20] Ashley Nerbovig: The Seattle editorial board said he's been leading with empathy. If anyone really wants to rage out, read that editorial. I don't know if Bruce called and said he was going to cancel the whole city's subscription to The Seattle Times, but it's just absolute garbage. Kandula was killed while Officer Kevin Dave was responding to a guy who had too much cocaine and wasn't even ODing. Rich, my editor, said this to me earlier this week, where he was like, we were talking about the drug vote, and he was saying - This is just another example of how cops shouldn't be the ones responding to people overdosing. EMTs can go to these things. [00:18:56] Crystal Fincher: And do in most other cities - without police, to be clear. [00:18:59] Ashley Nerbovig: And you mentioned earlier that it was unclear about his lights. And I don't know for sure what was going on there, because I know his in-car video wasn't working. But I've read another OPA case where someone had said that a cop was just turning on his lights and sirens to get through red lights - and the justification for that that they showed was that it was like - oh, he was tactically using his lights and sirens, which means that they only turn them on to get through lights and stuff, even though he's responding to a call. And when they do that, it means that their in-car video doesn't turn on. And that's allowed because - oh, it's a tactic. And super curious to see the end of this OPA report for Kevin Dave. EMTs are not worried about sneaking up on people - they just turn on their lights and go. But yeah, it's going to be really frustrating to watch. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: So now can you break down what this legislation does? Because I've seen it characterized in a number of different ways - Oh, it's making drugs illegal. It's like doing different things. What did this legislation actually change? [00:19:56] Ashley Nerbovig: This particular piece of legislation - to do my full roundup of this - everybody knows that in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court struck down our felony drug possession law. The Washington State Legislature scrambled to pass something - and they passed this idea of we're going to do two referrals to treatment before we arrest anyone, and we're only going to arrest on a misdemeanor, and that went across the state for people in possession of drugs. That went on for two years and it was unworkable - they didn't structure it, they didn't create a database for people to be marking referrals - it's called a stopgap measure. It was one of those things where it was a really half thought-out piece of what potentially could be progressive legislation, did more harm than just making it a misdemeanor and then trying to talk about decriminalization a little bit later - I think that might have actually ended up being strategically a better way to go, except you would have seen a bunch of people arrested in that time. The result is that they came back this session and they said - Okay, no. They had that big fight and they said - We're going to make it a gross misdemeanor, your first two offenses you're going to get a maximum sentence of 180 days, any offenses after that you're going to go up to 364 days. And they said - We prefer people defer to treatment, we prefer cops defer. - that was one thing that Herbold and Lewis both kept saying is - their City bill, that it was different from the state bill and that it starts the diversion out of the system process at the cop level before people even have a case started, whereas they kept describing the state bill as getting started. There are multiple places throughout the system that you can get diverted - you can get diverted before you get arrested so there's never anything on your record, you can get diverted after you've been arrested by the cops and now the prosecutors are in charge of your case and they defer any charges or defer any charges from getting actually convicted and then you're able to get it off of your record. So that's deferred prosecution. And then there's, you can get stuff - after you've been sentenced, you can get stuff wiped off your record. The argument that the City was making in how their bill was different from the state bill is they're saying - Oh, we really make it clear that our policy is not to arrest. The state bill does too. They say that it's their preference that people are diverted to treatment rather than be arrested. They also put a bunch of deferred prosecution stuff in there to divert people out of the system once they have charges against them. It's easier to talk about what this bill didn't do. It set a policy that said - This is our preference by the City of Seattle. So the state law was already in place. And now because it's a misdemeanor, state law passes - that starts in August, like everything gets implemented. So technically, cops could find people who were using drugs in public or possessing drugs in public and arrest them on a gross misdemeanor. And I think the using is such an interesting part of this, because there's nothing about possession as a charge that doesn't get at the same thing that public use does. When you make it all about public use and you add public use plus possession to this law, it is such a dog whistle towards people who are just mad at unhoused people. Morales said something really clear in the City Council vote, which was that this bill is not going to curb public use because the people who this bill is targeting have nowhere else to use. And so the state law passes, SPD cops can do this. But if SPD cops right now in Seattle - or right before this, because Harrell signed the bill yesterday - before this bill passed, if they arrested someone, their charges, because Seattle doesn't have its own ordinance, would have gone to Leesa Manion's office, the King County Prosecutor's, which would have made a ton of sense. King County Prosecutor's has a bunch of programs already in place for this - they've already been dealing with felony versions of this for a long time. But her office did a weird thing and got really like - We don't have the misdemeanor staff to handle this and these felony drug courts that we have wouldn't even apply to this. They did a bunch of workarounds - they really quashed the idea of these cases getting referred to them really early on, or at least they asked for money from us that apparently City Council just was unwilling to try to negotiate - or they were unwilling to negotiate trying to work out a contract. I never really understood what her motivations were with that or were slamming it down so hard. And so the City said - We're going to implement this ordinance and we're going to send these cases to our city attorney, Republican Ann Davison. So that's what this law does is that it doesn't - anyone who describes it - all that this law does is say that now Ann Davison can prosecute these cases, and also we would really like it if cops didn't arrest people on these charges. And it says - and I'll give them this - it adds a bunch of paperwork that cops now need to have when they do arrest someone on a drug possession charge. But I think Morales really summed it up really well where she said - This does not expand any diversion, it doesn't expand any treatment. - and this is probably a little bit more opinion-based, but - It doesn't improve public safety in any way. And I think that's so key is that we can ask - even if it's not, even if you aren't someone that believes in the nefarious, like that cops are all like Auderer and don't care about behavioral health and don't really look at people who are addicts on the street as someone that needs public health intervention - let's buy the premise that there are well-meaning cops out there who want to take these people to treatment. We do not have resources. And this idea that - in the City Council staff member, or the City Council Central Staff's memo, they said - Diversion requires social workers. These are actually much longer, much more resource-intensive cases. And cops are going to maybe divert the first or second time that they find someone, but then there's no resources to pick that person up - there's nothing to actually help them, maybe they're not ready to get treatment yet. And at some point, they're just going to arrest them and they're going to go through all of the charges. And maybe they're not going to go to jail because King County won't take them right now, but it's creating the structure for that. And they're still going to have to continue to show up at municipal court until they get something on their record that ends up putting them in jail. And we know how bad jail is - we know that it increases the chances of overdose. I think this bill kills people - I think that's the bottom line of what this bill does - is that it's going to kill a bunch of people, and make a bunch of people poorer, and do nothing to curb drug addiction, and fill our jails, and just continue the cycle of mass incarceration. [00:26:51] Crystal Fincher: The outcomes from this type of policy are clear. We have so much information about what happens when you do just fund, enable sending people to jail without doing anything to address the root causes for why they're there. Also, there are some people rejoicing over this - like it is going to help - I'll be curious to see their evaluation after a period of time, to see what their perception of what results. But it's just frustrating because we could choose to do what has shown to be effective elsewhere. Everybody is frustrated. I don't think anyone is happy. I don't want to be in a space where someone is using publicly, right? And perhaps inhaling secondhand something or whatever. But I also recognize that generally people who do use in public don't have another place to use. And if it is an issue of - addiction isn't logical, right? Addiction isn't reasonable. It's not - Oh, there are consequences for me going to jail now, so I'm just going to stop being addicted. The thing about addiction is that you can't decide to stop being addicted. It's not up to you. And that people fall into addiction for a variety of reasons. And being addicted is a reality that so many people face - to treat it as like they're less than human for struggling with that particular issue is ridiculous. But we do that from a public safety perspective. And as you said, this is going to largely wind up targeting the homeless - that's usually who this applies to - people. We can talk about the drug habits of executives and rich people, and the rates of drug use are not low across the board. I always find it so curious. We drug test minimum wage and low wage workers, but not high wage executives. I'm pretty confident what results we would see if we did that. There's an interesting video with Sara Nelson - yeah, speaking of politicians using drugs, and then voting on drug ordinances - but Sara Nelson has a place to use privately. That's the difference. [00:28:52] Ashley Nerbovig: Because we're going after public use, we're not going after possession. And the casual way she talks about it - you are aware that you are growing drugs, and you're telling people where to find drugs - and I can hear her argument against this, right? But the point of it is that drugs are not inherently dangerous, and it was incredibly frustrating to watch that video. And then think about the fact that when this was in front of the Public Safety Committee, Mosqueda came out and said - I want to make it very clear that lots of public health agencies at this point have said that breathing in secondhand fentanyl smoke is not dangerous to your health. I am someone who opens a window if someone blows vape smoke too close to me - I don't like it, I don't want that smell, I am not totally convinced that the smell will not linger. But it's like that, right - it's a smell, I'm not worried about getting a nicotine contact high. And the way that fentanyl gets demonized as the worst drug that we've ever seen, it's part of how we can dehumanize the people who are using it. And I think it's so interesting, because if you ask someone to class their own drugs, shrooms and weed and cocaine would be the bourgeoisie of drugs - they're allowed, it's fine - alcohol. All of those things are totally fine. And the people who use them are not degenerates or any way bad. Maybe cocaine. But for the most part, we are totally okay with those kinds of drugs, no matter how alcohol is still one of the most harmful substances in our society. Whenever I call the King County Medical Examiner's Board to get the overdose deaths, it's overdose deaths and deaths due to alcoholism. But they're longer term, right? So I'm not saying that - fentanyl is absolutely killing people - it's in everything. And it is a new, very scary problem because we don't have a ton of ways to treat it. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of what we're seeing, which is you had someone like Sara Nelson who struggled with her own story of addiction. But as soon as it becomes a drug that they view as dirty or not fun to scavenge for, you get this attitude of - We need to crack down on this. And that's how it's got to be a punishment-based system - it's not a conversation, it's not help, it's not treatment - we've got to really show these people the errors, the way to be, and improve their life. And it's just so condescending. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: This is the crack playbook at play. And again, to be clear, not at all saying that fentanyl is not very troublesome, problematic, and that we don't want people using that. Those are all true. But to say somehow a unique and unsolvable addiction issue as opposed to opioids, as opposed to all of the other things. The one thing that we know is that there are new drugs created all the time for a variety of things. There's going to be something more potent. Fentanyl is not the last, right? It's just the current. There is going to be a next. We've been playing this cat and mouse game with the War on Drugs, with all that we're doing - it's here. But hearing the language around that is the same tactic that happened with crack, right? And the justification to pass a ton of laws, super harsh penalties, mandating mandatory time, adding it as a strike for possessing crack, lower thresholds for dealing and all of that, as opposed to cocaine, which was used by a different demographic largely and fueled there. This is pretty transparent. And unfortunately, you hear a lot of the rhetoric in public meetings. You hear it from people - Oh man, this fentanyl, these people are like zombies, this is something completely new we haven't seen before. Those are all the same things that they said with crack. Those are all the same things that they say with the new drug that they want to use when they're in the mood to crack down and jail people - here is where we're at. Acting like fentanyl is just - oh, if you're addicted, you're lost, you're hopeless, is untrue. It is a dangerous drug. We need to address it. Public health approaches have a better record of doing that than punitive jail-based approaches. But it's a problem that we do need to get our arms around, but we make it harder to do that when we pursue policies to jail - which are very expensive to do in every single way. And then say - Sorry, we just don't have the resources to provide more treatment services, to provide more behavioral health services, to provide more housing, to provide detox for people. Those are all necessary for us to deal with this problem, and we just aren't doing it. I would like to do it. I would like to meaningfully address this - most people would - but this makes it much harder. I do want to talk about this week, a very important - and for our state historic - trial starting, of the three officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis. What is happening here? [00:33:58] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah. So they're still in jury selection. It's going to be a long, drawn-out process. I think opening statements start October 2nd. And for people who don't know the case, Manny Ellis was an unarmed Black man who was in Tacoma - this was March before George Floyd's death, and there are so many parallels. Everything that is terrible about George Floyd is terrible in this case. Bob Ferguson comes in, says that he's going to investigate this case, does an investigation. Tacoma Police Department does not cooperate with Washington State Patrol. Washington State Patrol and AG Ferguson ends up creating this probable cause statement and now three officers, three men are all on trial this week. Or the trial is starting and jury selection is starting. And there's one guy who - I can't remember his name now - but he's live tweeting all of it. And there's been some really interesting tidbits. One of the jurors - the judge asked if there were any jurors who might have conflicts presiding over a case involving law enforcement, no one raised their hands, and then the judge looks at this guy and says - But didn't you say you have a brother in law enforcement? And there's no other details, but that's where it's starting right now. And it'll be a really interesting case - it's horrible to see these cases get to this point - and you wonder about, I don't know anything about the disciplinary records of these cops. But yeah, that's where it's starting. And that's the background on it. [00:35:14] Crystal Fincher: And certainly - it's a trial. And I generally try not to follow these things or get emotionally invested in these trials - for good reason - they often don't seem to wind up with justice, and even what is justice when your loved one, someone you care about, a human being is killed. And just also lifting up - we hear about all these cases around the country - we have more than enough here locally. There's another police officer from Auburn currently awaiting trial for killing Jesse Sarey in Auburn. It's really troubling. And we also have family and friends of Manny dealing with this and having to once again hear the horrific details of this killing. And they're continuing to call for the firing of the cops who've been on payroll this entire time, who are still on payroll. There's a GoFundMe for the family. And court is something that people can show up to and show support if they want to do that also. It's a tragedy. And I hope the family is able to find peace and healing and that this can assist with that. I have no idea where they stand on this, but certainly, I'm thinking of them as this trial continues to go on. Last thing I want to talk about today is Seattle City employees rallying for fair pay. Why did this rally happen? [00:36:38] Ashley Nerbovig: Shout out to Hannah Krieg - she got all the great quotes for this one. This rally happened because apparently, and I'm quoting directly from her story - Bruce Harrell is funny, he's a funny guy, and if this is true, I believe it - Mayor Harrell told them to rally their asses off. The City started their negotiations for a pay increase of 1% and has settled on a pay increase of 2%. And the City workers are saying that's an insane way to start negotiations in one of the most expensive cities in the country. She puts this really good stat in there - that's a pay cut as the cost of, a 1% cost of living adjustment or even a 2% cost of living adjustment is a pay cut as the cost of living rose 8.7% this year. It's really important to note that the SPOG contract guarantees at minimum like a 1.5%, I think - I did a little tweet about this - it's plus COLA or something. But effectively, regardless of what their contract says, they have never gone a year without at least a 3% increase. Lieutenants and higher up guilds just got like a 4% increase. Sometimes I'll get these emails from the mayor's office that's - I'm really like unhappy with how you've portrayed us as prioritizing police. We really prioritize like other things too. - and it's, you can see it, where their money is going. So the workers are contract, are striking because they're not getting, at minimum, just keeping up with inflation. And the City of Seattle seems to think this is just like across the board, boy to cut is in general services and for the city. And that's - I really encourage people to follow Hannah's coverage on this because she's really on top of it. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's really challenging. We talked about police saying they have a shortage of officers and all of the action that has been taken to fix that including a retention bonus, healthy retention bonuses. And so we're talking about the shortages in the rest of the city, and it just doesn't seem like there is the interest in making sure the City is able to provide essential services and the level of service for everything that is currently happening and that people expect. There have been several council candidates who have said and agreed with - Yeah, we should be giving City workers the same kind of retention bonuses, investing in their retention, doing something tangible to actually address the shortage here. And we're going to be seeing Mayor Harrell's budget come out pretty soon. It's going to be interesting to see how he deals with that and what it is because a budget is a value statement - that's a document of values - where you're spending your money is what you value the most. And other things - you can talk about them and say they're great, but if you aren't funding them, clearly they were lower on the priority list in your estimation. And he may have his reasons to justify that. But it is disingenuous to say - Oh, I completely prioritize that, I value that, and I'm just not going to fund that while I'm going to fund this other thing. So it will be interesting to see. But it seems like the City has a lot of work to do to start to step up. And everyone on the campaign trail talks about their values and making sure people can live where they work, how important that is to our economy - and it absolutely is important - again, what tangibly is going to be done about that? What are we going to see in that budget? And if not, just what is really the tangible impact of that? So we'll continue to follow that. But certainly workers see some definite red flags there and are rallying to make sure people understand that this is a problem that has consequences for the entire city and beyond. And for all the plans that people say they have, they're going to rely on these employees to execute them. So we better make sure that there are people in place to deliver on the policy that we pass as a city. [00:40:34] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I hope we get a strike. I think it would be good for people to feel what happens when they don't - I think that a lot of these services are invisible. And we already see that SPOG is doing all these sick-outs and they're not responding to calls - and a lot of them are blaming it on the staffing shortages. When you hear about sick-outs, you get a little bit curious about those call response times. I hope it turns into a strike because I think people do need to realize how essential these workers are. [00:41:00] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the public - some people definitely see that, some people definitely don't. But a strike will be a failure, right? We're having a rally because an initial offer was pretty insulting. It was not a serious offer. It's a pay cut. If you're starting saying - Okay, how big a pay cut are you going to take to people who are already short-staffed and overworked? Because really, let's talk about it. When we talk about short staffing, that means that the same amount of work is falling on fewer heads. And that's a hard position to be in - and many of these positions aren't like super high-paid positions anyway. People are struggling to just pay their bills and work is getting harder, and now you're going to ask them to take a pay cut. And being disrespectful when that happens - Okay, go rally your ass off. So I hope there is more respect in this process and that lines of communication open and are productive. Because strikes are disruptive, right? They're not fun, they create a lot of drama. It may come to that - and I absolutely support workers' rights to strike and sometime that's necessary to get the job done - but I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they are able to talk. But it's going to take more respect from the City perspective, realistically - they just aren't starting in a serious place. [00:42:14] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I like what you said there. It would be a failure. My chaotic evil side is - yeah, disrupt it, show people that you exist and stuff. But you're right. It would suck for these workers to have to go on strike because - the no pay and I'm sure they have a fund - you're 100% correct. What I would actually like to see is Mayor Harrell care about these people the way that he has been so consistently able to show care for our police department. [00:42:44] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 22, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and the courts, Ashley Nerbovig. You can find Ashley on Twitter at @AshleyNerbovig, A-S-H-L-E-Y N-E-R-B-O-V-I-G. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on just about every platform at @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks - wherever you want to listen to us, you can listen to us - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar of your favorite pod player. And be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen - it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state is not constitutionally obligated to provide monies for capital construction projects to local school districts at the same level as basic education funding. https://tinyurl.com/7hvzaz7x #TheCenterSquare #WashingtonSupremeCourt #WashingtonState #NotConstitutionallyObligated #MoniesForCapitalConstructionProjects #LocalSchoolDistricts #BasicEducationFunding #PublicEducation #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Washington Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen is a trailblazer. The first woman to be popularly elected to the Court in Washington state history, and the third woman to serve on the Court, she is committed to public service and equal justice. While on Seattle's Municipal Court bench, she helped develop a Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee to comprehensively address violence in the family and as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court, she increased opportunities for women and attorneys of color to receive appointments as pro tem judges. She shares her remarkable journey from public defender and city attorney to her state's highest court with host M.C. Sungaila.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They discuss Dave Reichert's entry into the Washington gubernatorial race, whether fireworks are worth their consequences, observations about the motivation for and role of endorsements in local elections by powerful media outlets, a school governance model that renders school boards powerless, and Seattle Times poll results that challenge their usual narratives on homelessness and public safety. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times   “Fireworks cause at least 2 building fires in Seattle, dozens of brush fires” by David Hyde from KUOW   @waDNR on Twitter: “(deep sigh) All six wildfires in the Pacific Cascade Region this weekend were caused by fireworks.”   “Seattle's School Board Should Move Away from Student Outcomes Focused Governance” by Robert Cruickshank for The Stranger   “1 in 3 Seattle residents is considering leaving. Costs, crime are to blame” by Alison Saldanha from The Seattle Times   “Seattle police rated as ‘fair' or ‘poor' by most residents, poll finds” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Welcome. [00:01:11] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back on, Crystal. [00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Very, very excited to have you back on. And as we start our news of the week, we see a new entry into the race for governor - Dave Reichert. What do you make of this? [00:01:27] Robert Cruickshank: It's not that surprising, given that he had been apparently poking around the 2016 governor's race, the 2020 governor's race - Republicans didn't really have a leading candidate yet. I think corporate Democrat Mark Mullet was hoping he could de facto become the mainstream Republican candidate. But Reichert, I think, saw an opportunity here, realizing that the Republican candidates who have announced - people like Semi Bird or Raul Garcia - are much further to the right. Reichert himself has a very right wing record in Congress, of course, but he has 20+ years of presenting himself to the people of Western Washington, in particular, as someone who's more mainstream. And I think he saw his opportunity with Inslee retiring, an open seat. And open seat elections for governor in Washington - they're pretty rare these days - we've only had two this century. The first in 2004 was decided by 130 votes. And then in 2012, Inslee beat Rob McKenna, but it was pretty close - I think 51-49%. So Reichert saw his moment - I'm sure he had Republican leaders in the Legislature, corporate backers whispering in his ear, saying - Dude, we need you - there's no way we win otherwise. And even with Reichert in the race, it's still a pretty uphill climb for him, but he's going to have a ton of money and backing behind him for this. [00:02:39] Crystal Fincher: He is going to have a ton of money and backing behind him, and I do think that it was really an opening. And I think the opening came because of how extreme the Republican candidates are. The leading candidate right now is endorsed by Joe Kent, notoriously so extreme that he lost a traditionally Republican district to a Democrat in Congress - one of the biggest upsets in the country - because he is unhinged. And we're seeing candidates like that bubble up - now it's a reflection of how extreme the base has actually become. So I'm very curious to see what the reaction from the base to Dave Reichert is, because what - the people who were certainly encouraging him to run are looking for a more moderate presence, someone who is not presenting themselves as extremely as some of the other candidates are. But are they going to get any traction in a crowded primary where there are other alternatives that seem closer to that base? While at the same time, on the other side, I think Mark Mullet was really hoping to be able to capture moderate Republican votes - and has basically legislated as a moderate Republican, but still calls himself a Democrat because Republicans as a party have moved further to the right. But his policy certainly has not been consistent with Democrats in the Legislature or in the base. And so the concerning thing about him, from more progressive people, was that - Okay, if he makes it through against Bob Ferguson to the general election or against Hilary Franz in the general election, that he could siphon some Democratic votes for sure. But also pick up a ton of Republican votes, if Republicans don't feel like - Hey, we don't have one of our people in the general, but this guy is not as much of a Democrat as these other ones. That's a scary proposition in that situation. This really flips that and adds a whole new dimension to this race. So I'm curious - imagining what conversations are like in his camp - and what they're really considering as the impact on their campaigns and the path forward for each of them. [00:04:43] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, Mullet's team is, I think, trying to win over that sort of centrist Democratic vote. The thing is - it's just not that extensive - there's not very many of them. If you're a Democrat who is somewhat cranky with the status quo, you're not that numerous. Ferguson has won three statewide elections, he's got a strong base of support in King County, and will do well outside of King County as well. Mullet has, I think, really no path at this point. Especially as Reichert left Congress in 2018, so that means he avoided having to be there during both of Trump's impeachments. He avoided having to be there on the insurrection on January 6, 2021. So he is a bit of a relic from the past in many respects. But one of the things is he didn't have to go on record around some of these things and he'll try to play that up. But I think Bob Ferguson, who has not been running the greatest campaign - we should say, so far - running a front runner campaign, but really light on issues. He did hit pretty hard at Reichert - and correctly so - when he pointed out Reichert is a really right wing voting record on abortion rights in particular. And that matters here in Washington state, because the governor appoints Supreme Court justices in Washington state. And if you have a right wing governor who's trying to prove his anti-abortion cred to a suspicious base - he gets into office somehow - then I think we're going to have a real problem on the Washington Supreme Court. And we've seen what happens when you don't take Supreme Court nominations seriously. A lot of people, 2016, thought - Oh, they will never actually overturn Roe vs. Wade. Well, they did it. And you'll hear conversations here in Washington in 2024 saying - Oh, Reichert may be anti-abortion, he's got an anti-abortion record, but it's so safe here in Washington state, nothing could happen to it. I think we should know by now that anyone saying that is just deluded and has no real conception of the risk that a right wing anti-abortion candidate poses to abortion rights. [00:06:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and that's such an important point. And lots of people think it's safe - it is only safe to the degree that we actively protect it. It is only safe because there have been appointments of our State Supreme Court justices - that follow the law, follow the precedent, and understand that that's critical for personal freedom and autonomy. And the blueprint for how this works, we saw with Trump. Yeah, parrot that - Oh, I'll protect women's rights. Oh, it's settled law. We're not going to mess with it. Meanwhile, just appoint all the judges to do that work for you. The base knows that's how it works on that side - they play along - Yeah, he'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Don't worry about it. We know he's going to appoint these judges. That's where really the fight for rights gets usurped, where things that are not publicly popular get entrenched, and get implemented. So it just is a big concern in terms of that. And he gets credit for being a moderate Republican based off of really him not being there while more extreme Republicans were acting more extreme. I don't know that it's a given that he's not that extreme. I'm going to be really curious, especially through campaign stops as he hears the base demand more from him. Does his rhetoric change? Does it become more extreme for that party's base of today, which is different? I'm really curious to see how that race unfolds. [00:08:05] Robert Cruickshank: Reichert will have to campaign with Trump, either literally or figuratively. Trump will be on the same ballot and his rabid fan base, which is of course now the base of the entire Republican party, will be eager for restoration to power of Trump. And they're going to want to know where Reichert stands on that. And there's no way he actually gets around that. Now this is where - again, Ferguson has, I think, a gift here. He can run against an actual right wing Republican. But Ferguson's also going to have to learn the lessons of 2016, which is that you don't win solely by running against a right wing Republican. You have to have your own agenda that says - here's what I'm going to do differently as governor. Here's what I'm going to do to solve your problems. We haven't seen that from Ferguson so far. He seems content to run a traditional front runner campaign - where he has a poll lead, he touts his endorsements - but no real bold narrative to try to inspire people. He's going to have to do that. Because the lesson we learned in 2016 from Hillary's campaign was she didn't have that at all - she also ran a classic front runner campaign and narrowly lost. You have to have something that excites people about you yourself. Democrats have, for as long as I've been alive, tried to defeat the far right by pointing out how awful they are - sometimes works, but more often than not, it fails. Because the voters need to see from Democratic candidates those solutions to what they want. [00:09:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, could not agree more - and we will keep our eye on that race. Also this week, we had the July 4th Independence Day holiday. With that came fireworks celebrations - big publicly-funded fireworks celebrations from cities and counties. But also, just a ton of personal firework activity, although it is banned in several cities and counties around the state - that really doesn't seem to be consequential at all. What do you think about the use of fireworks, and is it worth the risk that they present now? [00:10:02] Robert Cruickshank: I don't know about you, but I remember - as a kid in Southern California - looking forward to the Fourth and lighting up the fireworks in the street and you think not much of it. You think about personal safety - Don't blow off your hand, kid. But I think what we're seeing here is there's a much larger policy problem with these personal fireworks. People talk about the way in which they cause post-traumatic stress revival in combat veterans, people worried about their kids and pets - that all matters. There's an even bigger problem though with the effect on our climate and on air. I think it was the Washington Department of Natural Resources pointed out that all six of the wildfires currently burning in Washington state were caused by fireworks. And Crystal, you've posted in the last couple of days on social media great before-and-after shots from downtown Tacoma - crystal clear blue sky shot of Mount Rainier, and then the day after the Fourth obscured by all the smoke. And we all woke up yesterday to all this smoke, which was caused in one part or another by people lighting off fireworks - whether it's just the actual smoke from the fireworks themselves or the wildfire smoke that it caused. And I think we have to look really seriously at whether, especially in a climate crisis, we want to be doing this. Our forests in Western Washington are especially dry this year. You go to campgrounds and they will soon, if they're not already, be under a burn ban - and rangers will come and enforce that. But a lot of cities like Seattle have fireworks bans - they're unenforced. And I remember - I think it was in 2011, I was working with Mike McGinn when he was mayor - I used to sit in occasionally on the meetings he had with SPD command staff. And I remember - I think it was July 4th, 2011 - when just fireworks went off all night and we just got flooded in the mayor's office with complaints - This is illegal, mayor, you should be enforcing it. And so the next day happened to be a command staff. And so I went in to help compose our response from the mayor's office and McGinn asked the commanders - What do we do about this? And the SPD brass all said - Yeah, it's illegal, but we have so many other things we're dealing with on the Fourth. We have to make sure that people aren't driving drunk, we're worried about people congregating in big crowds and causing problems, worried about gun violence. And Mr. Mayor, we can't respond to all of these calls. And people know that. Everyone knows that the prohibition on fireworks is never enforced. So we have to figure out what we're going to do about this. I don't think we want cops rolling up and down every street on the night of the Fourth. But is there some way we can more effectively limit the sale and use of fireworks? Because I think this is a clear climate problem. And it's not just the risk of someone blowing off a hand, which is bad enough. Now it's a risk to all of us and our air quality and our lungs. We don't want yet another smoke-filled summer just because people shot off fireworks unsafely. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I'm someone like you - especially growing up, when I was young in Southern California - loved fireworks. I loved fireworks here, I loved fireworks displays. There was - probably about 10 years ago, now 15 years ago - where it was similar kind of to the Blue Angels conversation - Yeah, I may enjoy it, but it does have negative impacts on others. Pets are freaked out, it's a nightmare to manage pets with the things. And people - because we have sent so many people to war, there are a lot of people dealing with PTSD and complex issues surrounding things that sound like very large explosions, especially when they're unplanned. And I don't know what things are like where you're at, but where I'm at in South King County, fireworks start long before the Fourth and they last long after the Fourth. And they're random. It just can sound like a random - six o'clock this morning - sounded like a random explosion happening - Did a bomb just go off? No, it's fireworks. And so they do just, themselves, have a lot of challenges. But they're compounding other huge problems that we're dealing with. You talked about the wildfire smoke that we're already dealing with - we're adding smoke on top of smoke in this situation, when we've learned so much more about how important air quality is to health. We're adding fires on top of fires, when we have our fire departments and our state fire officials trying to fight so many fires already. Skamania County residents were dealing with a water shortage because so much water was being used to fight fires. Is it really worth jeopardizing people's access to water here in Washington state? Is it really worth the days - plural - of horrible air quality directly attributed to that? And on days like today, and this week, when it's really hot out - Okay, we are a state that has very low rates of air conditioning inside, people have to go outside to keep from baking while they're in the house inside and now they've got to breathe dangerous air. I don't know that the cost is worth it. But also - one, you'd be surprised how many people who are progressive in many ways would like cops driving down every street enforcing fireworks bans. But I think what we've learned from all of these bans is that if the supply issue isn't addressed, I don't know that we get beyond this problem. And we've got to figure out a better way, just community-wise, to work on this. It feels like the cat is so far out of the bag. It feels like, whether it's cars or guns or other things that people just feel such an emotional attachment, and some ties to patriotism - which, if your patriotism relies on fireworks, it's not patriotism. But it's just a big challenge. I certainly am so tired of fireworks at this point in time, but I'm not sure what an effective path forward is. [00:15:39] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and one thing to note is that the sale of fireworks is banned in much of Western Washington, but one notable exception is tribal lands. And I think people have the experience of driving through tribal lands and seeing these enormous stands where fireworks go on sale two weeks before the Fourth. And Native Americans have, as we all know, been denied their rights for so long, you don't want to come in and try to pass some ban. At the same time, I think it's worth having some conversation with those communities and say - What can we do about this? How can we find a way to bring down the number that are being sold and really try to crack down on the abuse of privately owned fireworks? [00:16:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. You will not find me advocating for telling tribal communities what to do, sovereign governments what to do. But I do think there is a place for conversation among everyone to try and figure out how can we better manage this, at least. Also want to talk about some races going on right now. We are coming up on the primary election, which will be on August 1st. We're seeing some endorsements begin to trickle out from a number of outlets. Are there any endorsements that have caught your eye to this point? [00:16:54] Robert Cruickshank: There's one that came out yesterday, which was completely unsurprising - but still notable, I think - which is The Seattle Times not really endorsing Sofia Aragon for King County Council, but really endorsing against Teresa Mosqueda, who they just seem to loathe. And reading their editorial yesterday, the thing to know is that they don't tell you precisely why they loathe Teresa. They talk about - Oh, defunding police, she doesn't take public safety seriously - none of which is true. The real reason they don't like her is because she's incredibly effective at standing up for working people, standing up for their unions, and especially taxing big corporations. JumpStart, the tax on big corporations here in Seattle, would not have happened without Teresa Mosqueda's leadership. The Times is so anti-tax and wants to cut taxes on big corporations - that's what they really care about. And one of the reasons why this endorsement matters is because it's a tell - it shows what's really going on when The Times makes their endorsements this year. And you see the pattern across these races in Seattle City Council, they'll say - Oh, we're endorsing this person because they sound good and they have experience, and they're going to crack down on public safety, and they're going to outlaw drug use, and resume the War on Drugs - that's their surface level messaging, because they know that's what resonates with their section of the electorate. But the truth here is they want a city council that will repeal the JumpStart Tax. They want a city council that will either slow walk, or undermine, or not even do a capital gains tax - that is what the Blethen family's cared about, above all else - is taxes. And they're furious that someone like Teresa Mosqueda was able to finally get the JumpStart Tax through, and they want to see her defeated because they don't want her going on the King County Council and continuing her successful advocacy for taxing the rich and big corporations. So I think it's important to read Times endorsements with that lens in mind. [00:18:44] Crystal Fincher: The corporate money in Seattle politics, I think, is pretty safe to say that it's primarily motivated by anti-tax sentiments. We have talked for years and years about Washington state, Seattle included, having the most regressive tax system in the country - meaning that the people at the bottom spend much more of their money on taxes than the people at the top. We have no income tax, and we're light on a lot of other taxes for the most wealthy individuals and businesses here in the state. They want to maintain that. They love the status quo. Now everyone else is suffering under it - we've seen how that impacts homelessness, poverty, education, other services, seniors - everything else is starved because these people want to maintain their wealth and profits to the detriment of the rest of the community. So when we hear these things and when you hear these wedge issues, the cruelty sometimes that comes to those conversations is absolutely there - but that corporate money really is motivated by who's going to ensure that we're not going to pay more taxes. And so what I think we've increasingly seen, and I'm definitely noticing this cycle, is that these candidates really are not on record about much. And when you read this endorsements, they don't point to - hardly any specifics - you see things like, They seem like they can bring people together. They have a perspective that can reach lots of people. But what are the details? What have they done? And usually that's not included in these endorsements. And so what is it really about? Not what they're talking about in that article - it's about the taxes. And Teresa Mosqueda has been so extremely effective at figuring out what the community needs, responding to what the community actually desires, and putting together a coalition and a revenue package that addresses the most critical needs that we have in the City. It was extremely popular - so popular that it passed and has been really resilient. People not only liked it before passage, they love it now. And on top of that, it was put together so well and so soundly that the JumpStart Tax bailed us out of an economic shortfall. The JumpStart Tax prevented austerity in the City of Seattle. Bruce Harrell used JumpStart money to help stabilize a lot of his priorities. This has been very helpful to everyone with all interests, because it was there to backstop the volatility that comes with not having more stable progressive revenue. So it is really disappointing to see that. And it feels like they're talking out of two sides of their mouth because they have benefited from that tax. But it's a tax, so it must be bad. And Teresa Mosqueda understands budgets - she understands where to find money, where money needs to be invested to get the biggest benefit - and is looking to take that to the King County Council, which it's desperately needed there. I don't know if many people pay attention to how opaque the King County budget is, but it is really hard for - even legislators - coming out there to understand. And for the public to engage with, it's really difficult. And Teresa Mosqueda has proven that that's her forte, that she can bring more transparency and accountability to the tax money that's being spent - because I do think there are legitimate questions about - Where is this money being spent? How is it being spent? How does this compare to other times? And I think she's in a unique position to do that. It's just wild to see someone do something that a lot of people thought was impossible, and do it so successfully that it's literally benefited everyone in the City, and have that just not be acknowledged. [00:22:31] Robert Cruickshank: Your point about what corporate money really wants is anti-tax policy - I know that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce was asking city council candidates this year a question that basically went - Do you agree that we should be wisely spending City money and look to cut spending before we raise taxes elsewhere? It's a very leading question that clearly states their goal. They want to roll back as much of JumpStart as they can. And what they're seeing with JumpStart, as well is the state capital gains tax - it's popular. Not only is it effective at raising money, it raises more money than people thought it would. There's a lot of money to be gained through taxing corporations, through taxing the capital gains of wealthy people. It's popular, it works. Teresa Mosqueda could bring that to King County, where there's a huge crisis with transit - we're losing routes, having a hard time retaining operators, need to pay them better, give them better benefits, put more buses out there. That all costs money. And King County usually goes to property taxes or sales taxes to fund transit. Well, put Teresa Mosqueda on that council and you could see something much more progressive in terms of revenue for our transit system - that sends shivers down the spines of every Seattle Times editorial board member, and that's why you saw this absurd attack on Mosqueda in their editorial yesterday. [00:23:51] Crystal Fincher: What do you think about the role of endorsements - in Seattle, particularly - so far? [00:23:58] Robert Cruickshank: It's interesting - I've been talking to a few candidates about this. And a couple candidates - some who have just not really done the political thing before, but who have paid attention to politics. Like most of us who are progressive - we don't know much about a candidate or a race - we open The Stranger and look at their endorsements. I first moved here in 2001. I had no idea about anything related to local politics, but I read The Stranger and I'm - Okay, yeah, this makes sense. And ever since, that's usually how I voted until I started paying close attention to things myself. But talking to candidates, and some of these folks are - Gosh, you know, if I don't get a Stranger endorsement, I'm sunk. My campaign's over. And I try and say - No, that's not true at all - I've worked with candidates, local, state, federal candidates around the country who lose a key endorsement and go on to win anyway because they run a great campaign that gets their message out to voters and talks about things that people really care about. But I think here in Seattle, we've gotten to a place where - even though I strongly agree with The Stranger endorsements 9 times out of 10 - I think these newspaper endorsements - The Stranger, The Times, in particular - have become too influential. And I don't think this is necessarily the fault of the papers themselves. Newspapers do endorsements all the time around the country. And there are other media outlets here in Seattle that do endorsements - South Seattle Emerald does, PubliCola, Urbanist. But it's these two in particular, Stranger and Times, have outsized influence. And I think we, who are progressive activists, voters, people who - I don't know about you, but I'm the type where family and friends say - Robert, I don't know how to vote on this. What should I do? We need to start doing a better job steering people towards other sources of information, in addition to these newspaper endorsements. One of the reasons being they're small-d undemocratic - you can have candidates that have done great work in their community, who've built up a strong network of support, who've really gone out there and hustled to build grassroots backing, who are running a progressive campaign. And if they don't have a great day in an interview, or they aren't buddies with the Blethens - they don't get an endorsement and their campaign's sunk. You can get around that. And I think we, who are the progressive activists, need to do a bit better job of helping campaigns and helping inform voters how to run smart campaigns, how to get messages out there, and what those messages are. Because there are great candidates who are going to be overlooked in some of these endorsements. And though, again, I'm assuming I'll agree with 9 out of the 10 endorsements that we see in The Stranger when they come out later this month, I still want to see voters look to other sources as well. And I want campaigns to know that they can still win, even if they don't get this or that endorsement. We're finishing up our endorsement process at the Sierra Club - I want people to look at Sierra Club endorsements and think that they matter, and I think they do. But I also want to be part of a campaign - I wouldn't want anyone to look at the endorsements we're doing and have that be the final word. It all needs to be part of building a movement that's grassroots in nature behind campaigns, rather than having people who we might agree with - or not agree with, in the case of The Times - anointing winners and losers. I don't think that's healthy for a progressive movement. [00:26:58] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. And I think endorsements are useful as a piece of information as a data point, not as the determining factor. And it is bad for small-d democracy. To your point, it's not necessarily the fault of the papers. But like with The Stranger - The Stranger is batting a thousand in its endorsed candidates getting through the primary. So basically, if you're a progressive candidate and you don't get The Stranger endorsement in your primary, it's bleak. It is that bleak at this point in time. I think part of it is due to us losing so many reporters at so many other outlets, the decline of local media. We used to have a ton of papers in South King County - now we have a few, and those few are dramatically understaffed. And that's the case throughout the City. We used to have more hyperlocal blogs even in the City than we do today - even that is hard. The revenue needs, it's harder to support yourself as an independent journalist, it's harder for newsrooms to afford to put the amount of reporters on things. And I think what I've seen is there's been a decline in the amount of political reporters. There's been a decline in the amount of coverage overall. And that coverage used to do a better job of informing the editorial policies and the endorsements. Hard to ignore something that was covered on the hard side of your paper that was reported and just not address it, or gloss over it, or not acknowledge it's a problem. That's much easier to do when you just aren't able to cover the things, but the coverage isn't happening. So you get these really ideologically focused endorsements - it's not like they weren't ideological before, but now there's not even reporting to back that up in so many situations. And really one of the reasons why I started moderating debates was because I just want those endorsements to reflect who those candidates really are. I want voters to understand what the candidates really believe, what they're on record voting for, what they're on record doing. Because so many times these days, these endorsements happen that don't talk about anything that is on the record. People read that, they believe it because it's coming from a trusted paper. Then they get into office and govern consistently with their record and people have the surprise Pikachu face like - I never knew this was going to happen. When it's just like - if endorsements and editorial boards would have done a better job of making sure that endorsement reflected who that candidate was, we wouldn't be in this situation. And so I just think it's a disservice, really, to voters to not have who a candidate is and what they've actually done - good and bad, wherever that falls. Just have it be based in reality, and be based on what they've said and what they've done. And that just seems to be playing less of a role in some of these major endorsements, understandably, because there isn't a lot of coverage there. You have people doing their best to interview people in these situations, but it's a big challenge. [00:29:56] Robert Cruickshank: We also need to draw distinctions between The Stranger and The Times - not just on ideology, but an approach. Like at least at The Stranger, you've got the reporters themselves, comprising their Election Control Board, doing the interviews themselves. And those interviews are tough - tough in a good way. They ask really good hard-hitting, probing questions and they follow up with hard-hitting probing responses - they don't let people wiggle out of something. They're coming in there with some background, they've done research there, and they're coming at it trying to get a sense of who's going to be the most progressive, who's going to fight for us, who's going to be a champion. I like that and I respect that - that's good. The Times is coming in there with a clear bent and an agenda - 9 times out of 10, they know who their candidate is going to be well in advance. And they're just looking for things in the endorsement interview at The Times that they can quote in the editorial, or they want to get the candidate they really don't like and oppose to say something in the interview they can quote from and bash them over the head with it in the editorial of the other person. So I think those are fundamental differences there. But I think you said, as usual, a lot of really good things here - one of which is the lack of reporting. And I think we've seen local reporting just fall apart, not just in Seattle, but it's even worse once you get outside Seattle. These smaller towns like Burien or Bothell or Kent or Federal Way or whatever it is, the local coverage is almost non-existent. Or when it does exist, it comes from the right wing. And that's not helpful either when there are huge populations in these cities that are progressive and want a progressive solution. And so I think the lack of reporting on a day-to-day basis really just undermines a lot of our ability to run the democracy the way we want to. I also want to close by saying I think it's a little bit incumbent on candidates and campaigns and consultants themselves to do a better job running smart campaigns. I think here in Seattle, in particular, some folks have become a little too reliant on getting a Stranger endorsement - counting on that to get them through the primary, counting on that to get them through a general election. Yeah, if you get that endorsement, clearly it's worth a lot. It's valuable. I don't know that Mike McGinn would have been mayor without getting The Stranger in 2009, so that worked out. But I think at the same time, you have to run a smart campaign - McGinn ran a really good campaign in 2009. Stranger endorsement might get you through the primary - doesn't always get you through the general election. You have to have a really sharp ability to get your message out there, mobilize your voters, and talk about things that voters care about in a progressive way. I worry that with the dominance of just a couple endorsement sources, that people aren't running as insightful or smart campaigns as they might in other parts of the country. [00:32:25] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. I also want to talk about a piece about Seattle Public Schools in The Stranger this week by none other than Robert Cruickshank. [00:32:38] Robert Cruickshank: It comes back to this question of local reporting. And I was looking at some articles a few months ago about the strike that happened at Seattle Public Schools in 2015 - and just the amount of coverage from so many different reporters and so many different outlets, compared to what we have today, was striking. There's very little coverage now happening in the media about what's going on at Seattle Public Schools. The Times will cover it occasionally, but there's a bent to it. The Stranger rarely - and again, they don't have the resources they need to cover everything they want to cover. It's not their fault. It's - the ecosystem is eroded by corporations and private equity and all of that. But what I wanted to draw attention to is this issue around how the schools are governed. And there is an effort out there, funded by the Gates Foundation through something called the Council for Great City Schools, to impose a model of governance on the school board and the school district that is rooted in corporations and nonprofit governance - where a school board is really the school district's version of the city council, or the legislature, or Congress, right? That's how it works today and how it should work - they're the elected representatives of the democracy to make sure that everything's going properly, that if there's a problem the board can step in and fix it, to hold the bureaucracy accountable. Bureaucrats hate that, and so do the corporate education reformers at the Gates Foundation - they've always been trying to find ways to limit or eliminate the public's oversight and influence in operations of the school district. And so what they've come up with lately is this thing called Student Outcome Focused Governance, which sounds great - we all want good student outcomes. But in practice, what it means is this tendency - which already existed - to have the board do less and less work and have less and less oversight over district operations. It now locks the board into a really rigid system where the board essentially becomes rubber stamps. The idea is that they give goals to the superintendent - we want a certain amount of third graders to score well on a test. And guardrails - Oh well, you agree you're not going to violate community norms by doing this. It's all really vague stuff, but there's no enforcement mechanism. And ultimately, what happens is that when a school community comes to the board saying - We have a problem here. You're cutting our jazz program at Washington Middle School - which is nearly a third Black students at Washington Middle School. Franklin High School - You're eliminating our mock trial program - the student body at Franklin, about a third Black. A year ago, the district fired the principal at Cleveland High School, who had done a great job hiring a faculty that looked like the diverse community that attends Cleveland, that had done a great job raising graduation rates, especially among Black students. And they fired her because she violated a district mandate to hide the stats on COVID cases. And so the community - again, a lot of Black families show up at the school board saying - Oh my God, this is terrible, you need to intervene. And the board in all these cases says - No, we're not going to do anything. And part of the reason they say no is they say - Well, we've decided we're stepping back from operations. We're not going to interfere with what the superintendent is doing. And this new model of Student Outcome Focused Governance, where we hand over more and more power and policy to the superintendent, is part of that push. And so it's just adopting this corporate mindset where your board of directors just rubber stamps everything and lets the CEO do what they want - that's not how a school district is supposed to operate. And the nice thing about Seattle is we're not a place where we have Moms for Liberty showing up at the school board meetings wanting to ban books. Now, that is a problem in Kent and a problem in other places - you have to figure out how you manage that democratically. But here in Seattle, we need a board that is engaged - especially with $130 million budget deficit, especially with closing schools. And we're going to see at tonight's board meeting, some of this play out - where they're reviewing their goals and seeing that actually these goals they set out - of third graders achieving certain test score proficiency - aren't being met. In fact, they're pretty far from being met. And so the question is - All right, what are you going to do, board? Are you actually going to intervene on any of this, or are you just going to let it go? And the last thing I want to mention on this front is the board is looking at, the district really, is looking at closing schools. They might announce this fall maybe as many as 20 schools they want to close, which will be a huge story, a bomb going off in communities when their core of their neighborhood, their school is closed. And people have been asking - Well, what's the board going to do to have public input? The superintendent's plan is to have a couple of public meetings in August, when people are either physically not here or are checked out for other reasons - they're not engaged in their school community - to have this conversation. And is the board going to do anything about that? Are they going to actually bring in the voices of the communities that are going to be most affected and impacted? Or are they just going to say - Eh, we've ceded all that power. We don't really want to do that work. We're just going to sit here and rubber stamp what the administration says. These are fundamental questions about community involvement and governance, small-d democracy - and the board is going off in the wrong direction with very little oversight from the public and certainly not from the media. [00:37:30] Crystal Fincher: I'm really glad you wrote that because it's such a big problem. And what was striking to me was a couple of things - as you mentioned, just how frequently the voices of parents and students have just been ignored. Where problems - yes, they exist, yes, it's bad, but it's not our place to intervene, basically. And if it's not their place, then what are they doing? It just doesn't seem to make much sense. And in the context of this current election, where we have school board candidates talking about what they want to do, what their goals are, how things would change - that seems like that would be hard to do under this current structure. It seems like - in order to make any kind of progress, to have anything that they're talking about land in the realm of possibility - we have to change this way of doing things first. So it's a bleak situation currently, but it can be changed. And there just needs to be a focus. And I thank you for writing that to help provide that focus - on everyone saying - Wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. And really just another thing that is bad for public governance. [00:38:36] Robert Cruickshank: One of the reasons I wrote it is these are conversations happening among a lot of different parents in Seattle that - there's a whole network of people who are engaged and talking with each other about these concerns and growing increasingly frustrated that they're just not getting media coverage. And this is where I point out - yeah, there's so fewer reporters covering the schools these days. As we said, even earlier in this podcast, while we think it's bad in Seattle, it's so much worse once you get just a couple of miles outside of the City, where there are Moms for Liberty people out there pushing really hard to ban books, to attack trans kids, take down Pride flags. And that occasionally gets covered when it gets bad enough, but the constant drumbeat going on in some of these smaller school districts is just not getting the attention it needs to and it's a problem. [00:39:26] Crystal Fincher: It's a big problem - in Kent, in Highline School District, in Tacoma. It is in our suburbs. And because it isn't getting much pressure and because information is so siloed, we're seeing alliances form - some people who endorse Democratic candidates falling into this trap and then just spiraling from there. And it's a big challenge, but we won't be able to get on top of it without taking action here. And by having those districts that aren't being afflicted with that set an example, policy-wise, for other districts. Seattle is in such a unique position, as a larger city with a progressive population, to be able to do that. And policies like this - you could almost say they were designed to prevent that, that's how it works on the ground. But it absolutely needs to be changed. Now I also want to talk about some polling that we saw reported in The Seattle Times this week, that may have been surprising to some Seattle Times readers if they read past the headline. What did you see here? [00:40:32] Robert Cruickshank: There's some fascinating results, including even in today's Times, where - just starting with the one that appeared today - the headline, "1 in 3 Seattle residents thinking about leaving the City." Okay - another "Seattle is Dying" narrative? Well, you read the actual article and look at the polling results - you see that about 30% of those people saying they want to leave are worried about housing costs - turns out they're renters who love Seattle, they feel safe here, they like the City a lot and they don't want to leave. But they feel like they're being priced out, so they're looking - Maybe I move to Tacoma, maybe I move to Montana, maybe I move to Texas - but they don't want to. Then there's another third of those people who are looking at leaving Seattle, who are the ones who say they're concerned about public safety - turns out, overwhelmingly, homeowners making more than $250,000 a year as a household - these are people who have no actual public safety worries. We have issues in Seattle, but this is a very, very safe city by any stretch of the imagination. And yet these are the people who have the most privilege, the most money and wealth in the City, who are being spooked by the coverage they're reading in The Times and thinking - Oh gosh, maybe I need to move out of here, it's become unsafe. No, it's not. But it's interesting to see who gets attention and who doesn't. The Times caters to that wealthy homeowner and stokes their fears about public safety. While the renter - usually younger, usually more progressive - The Times actually attacks what they need. The Times is notorious for opposing housing bills. The missing middle bill, the Times tried to kill earlier this year from the editorial side. So it's interesting to see these results even pop up in The Times' own reporting. Earlier this week, they had something on public safety and police - shouldn't surprise any progressive that "defund the police" is now unpopular with pretty much most of the electorate. But what remains highly popular across the board - and this shows up in the Chamber's own polling as well - is standing up alternatives to police. That has huge support. People get it - that we need an alternative to sending an officer with a gun to a lot of these calls. We need to preserve that for violent crime or theft in progress - the things that you might want a cop for. Someone in mental health crisis needs a mental health counselor, not a cop. Suspicious person walking down the street - come on, someone else can respond to that who's not going to escalate that with a gun. And the public gets that. And yet that's not reflected in The Times editorializing. And as we know, City Hall, especially the mayor's office, really dragged its feet on setting up alternatives to policing, even though the public is making it clear in these polls that they want that. [00:43:07] Crystal Fincher: And notable that - even on this program before - Monisha Harrell, former Senior Deputy Mayor, really wanted to stand those up. And unfortunately, she's not going to be with the administration much longer. And even in this and this public safety poll - it is so interesting how people view polls, approach polls, and how media entities are now using polls. One - now, you want to view the entire poll. And what we've seen increasingly from outlets, including The Seattle Times, is the kind of dripping of information. And okay, you drip information - still talk about your methodology, but they seem to be like - Oh, it's all about talking about this - so that's definitely one thing to note. I'm looking at the headlines on some of these things, which are curious. But when you look at the actual results - my goodness, when asked the question - How would you rate the job the Seattle police are doing in the City? - 60% of residents say it's not good. The choices are excellent, good, fair, and poor - 40% say fair, 20% say poor. If you have 60% of residents in your city saying you're not doing a good job - for everyone else, that gets breathless headlines from The Times saying that they're in trouble, maybe they're on their way out, but here it just seems to not factor into the narrative. And not that The Times is going to say - Okay well, disband - that's not going to happen. But it can inform questions - like in the last municipal elections, we had a number of candidates running on police reform. Now, some with a more cynical view - myself included - when they saw, say, mailers from Sara Nelson saying that she was going to focus on police reform, didn't really believe that. But hey, everyone gets elected, they have a chance. Now, I don't know what Sara Nelson has done in this time on the council about police reform, but that seems to be the thing - just promise it and never get to it. Or that's basically the - You know, hey, we don't need to do any extreme stuff, but things do need to get better. Once again, if you don't talk about what those things are, what your actual plans are, it really commits you to nothing. And surprise, what we have gotten there is nothing - when the public is really saying - Please do something and we're getting increasingly dissatisfied by not doing something. You talked about how people desperately want alternatives to policing. There are few policy proposals in any issue area that are as popular as that. And so my goodness, stand that up, get the job done. And what this could really spur is an examination of why, when it's so popular, it's not happening and the mayor's office is dragging its feet. It's funded by the Seattle City Council, this is really in the mayor's lap. Why isn't this happening? But there just seems to be no curiosity here. And this, to me, is interesting in just how campaigns use polling. A lot of times it's not for horse race stuff - it's to inform where people are at on issues, how to bridge the gap between where people are at and where you are as a candidate, and where you'd like them to be. It's not a - Well, this is where people are at and this is all we can do about it. It's a piece of information, it's not a determining factor for what will happen. And we see that all the time, because polls move and polls change. And the more you talk about an issue, you see the numbers move on it. So it's not set in stone, but it is a piece of information and it just feels like we aren't using that information effectively. [00:46:30] Robert Cruickshank: I think you can look at some of the progressive campaigns in Seattle that are being run this year, and I'm not sure in some cases what their overall strategy is. Because there's a clear path here - tax the rich, stand up alternatives to policing. And quickly get people housed without sweeping them, without being violent and destructive, but get our homeless neighbors into housing that is good and housing they want to be in - with a door that locks, for example. That's popular. All those things are super popular and they probably can run on that. And then The Seattle Times candidates are going to have a hard time saying - Oh yeah, me too - because their backers don't want that. But these polls are really fascinating because of what they show, and how they not just complicate but openly challenge the narrative that we're seeing from The Times, from the Chamber, and from some of these candidates, people like Sara Nelson and others. This is not a right-wing city. This is a city that sees some problems out there and wants them solved. And wants progressive solutions to them, as long as progressives are able to truly offer them. [00:47:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And shows that everyone across the board is concerned about these problems. There's this narrative that progressives just don't care about crime. Statistically, we're victims more than anyone else. We're victims of this stuff. We are suffering from it - we don't want it, it's unacceptable. What is infuriating is seeing so much money and time devoted to things that have proven not to solve this and being told - But we don't have the money or resources to actually do the things that will. Well, if you would just stop wasting them on the things that won't - how many headlines do we have to see that community is upset because following this sweep, people came back to next door, right across town. Clearly, and literally I've seen four of those headlines in the past two weeks for our region. And yeah, it's so obvious that just saying - Go somewhere else - and violently imposing that and destroying people's property while telling them - Go somewhere else - just doesn't work. The problem is that they don't have homes. If we aren't doing anything to get them in homes, we are just perpetuating the problem and spending a lot of money to do it - it's just so incredibly wasteful, it's so fiscally irresponsible. [00:48:46] Robert Cruickshank: What this shows is that candidates on the right, Seattle Times, Chamber of Commerce - people like that - are not actually interested in solving these problems. They're not really interested in housing the homeless. They're not really interested in dealing with people who are abusing drugs, addicted to drugs, and doing so in public. They're not really interested in solving the crime problem. What they're really interested in is taking those problems - blowing them up out of proportion, scaring people about them, and then using that fear to turn people against progressive elected officials and progressive candidates. Because as we talked about earlier in the show, what they really care about is cutting taxes for the wealthy and for big corporations. They know that those taxes are extremely popular, but if they can elect candidates who will roll those taxes back and elect them on other issues by stoking those fears - that's a winning political strategy. And it's worked. It's a strategy that exists for a reason - it's often successful. And so we, who are progressive, have to understand that. And we not only need to just point out that that's what the playbook the other team is using, we have to counter that with having the solutions that people really want. And fight hard and effectively get them. This is where Teresa Mosqueda, again, has been very, very good at this. She had, with the JumpStart Tax, tried to fund affordable housing. The council in 2020 had great efforts - great programs funded and approved to solve visible homelessness. And Jenny Durkan just undermined all of them for political reasons. And so that's the challenge that we face - is often progressives are going to get the blame for things that corporate Democrats and right wingers have blocked them from doing. [00:50:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, could not agree more. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 7th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, one of the best political minds on the West Coast, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on one of the 11 platforms that people are on, probably, @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks and me @finchfrii on all platforms. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Washington Supreme Court voting decision could reverberate; the US navy detected likely implosion of Titan submersible hours after it began its mission; NY sees mixed results for child well-being.

Washington Supreme Court voting decision could reverberate; the US navy detected likely implosion of Titan submersible hours after it began its mission; NY sees mixed results for child well-being.

Justice G. Helen Whitener of the Washington Supreme Court is a trailblazer: the first Black woman to serve on the Washington Supreme Court, the fourth immigrant-born Justice, and the first Black LGBT judge in the State of Washington. But even though she is the first, she doesn't want to be the last. So she focuses on teaching and mentoring others to pursue a legal career and apply to the bench. With host M.C. Sungaila, she discusses the importance of mentoring to her own legal career and treating everyone with respect and humanity.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. They talk about the newly uncovered messages that reveal former Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan allegedly ordered the abandonment of SPD's East Precinct, where the “Blake fix” stands after its failed vote in the legislature, the remaining need to address renter protections after the legislature passed major legislation to address the housing supply and affordability crisis, the success of the King County Crisis Care Centers levy, and the failure of the Kent School District bond underscoring the need for bond reform and for putting school measures on primary and general election ballots. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Heather Weiner at @hlweiner.   Heather Weiner Heather Weiner (she/her) is a political consultant with 30 years of experience on labor, environmental, LGBTQ, racial justice, and reproductive rights issues. She focuses on ballot initiatives, independent expenditures, legislative, union organizing and contract campaigns. She's a recovering lawyer.   Resources Teresa Mosqueda, Candidate for King County Council District 8 from Hacks & Wonks   ““Please Stop on the Teams Chat”: New Records Expose Mayor Durkan's Role and Others in Abandonment of East Precinct” by Glen Stellmacher from The Urbanist   “WA Legislature fails to pass new drug law; special session likely” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “No Clear Path Toward Criminalizing Drugs in Washington” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “5 big things Washington's Legislature passed in 2023” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Final state transportation budget boosts funding for highways, ferries, traffic safety and the Climate Commitment Act” from Washington State House Democrats   “Washington Legislature increases support for free school meals” by Griffin Reilly from The Columbian   “Washington State Rakes In Revenue From Capital Gains Tax” by Laura Mahoney from Bloomberg Tax   “Voters approve King County's crisis center levy” by Michelle Baruchman from The Seattle Times   “Voters turn down Kent School District bond measure” by Steve Hunter from The Kent Reporter   Find more stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I am a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is to leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chat with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she wants to bring to the County from serving on the Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on the major issues facing residents of the County. Today, we are continuing our Friday shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: political consultant and urban farmer - who now even has chicks - Heather Weiner. [00:01:26] Heather Weiner: Hi, Crystal - so nice to talk with you again. [00:01:29] Crystal Fincher: Nice to talk with you again. I guess I should clarify - chicks as in mini-chickens. [00:01:32] Heather Weiner: Well, I have had many chicks, but now I'm married. Yeah, I have four baby chicks in my office right now under a heat lamp - getting them settled and we'll move them out to the henhouse probably in about five or six weeks. So you may hear a little bit of baby chirping in the background here. [00:01:48] Crystal Fincher: A little bit of baby chirping. I did hear the chirps - they are adorable. I actually got a sneak peek and now I want some chicks. [00:01:57] Heather Weiner: Everybody does - you can't go back. [00:01:59] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes, yes. Okay, I guess we'll start out talking with the news that broke yesterday on a long-standing story - stemming from the abandonment of Seattle PD's East Precinct, which happened in the middle of the 2020 protests amid a lot of controversy - sustained abuses and excess physical abuse by police against protesters and residents of the City. And in the middle of that, the abandonment of the East Precinct - which was at first almost tried to, spun as protesters forced them out - lots of hyperbole on Fox News and conservative media, all that kind of stuff. But for quite a long time, they said they had no idea who made the call to abandon the precinct. [00:02:48] Heather Weiner: But you know that Spiderman meme - where the Spiderman is, all the three Spidermans are standing in that triangle pointing at each other? This was a live-action Spiderman meme where we just had all of these high-ranking officials, high-paid officials within Seattle City government and the department pointing at each other and saying - It's your fault. No, it's your fault. No, it's your fault. But look at this news from internal chats that are coming within the Seattle IT department - who know better than to delete their text messages and their chats - saying the order came directly from Durkan, at exactly the same moment that Chief Best, then-Chief Best, was telling reporters there's no order to evacuate the East Precinct building. So liars are lying. [00:03:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so it turns out Jenny Durkan ordered the Code Red and wow, there's been a lot of obfuscation about this. And even in these - in this records request and what was released - it is clear they are bending over backwards to avoid discussing this in a disclosable way, to avoid discussing this in a way that would be illuminated by issues like this. But they didn't get everyone in on the conspiracy in time. However, they did catch someone being like - Hey, hey, hey, hey, don't discuss this on the Teams chat. [00:04:01] Heather Weiner: Right. It literally says - Do not discuss this on the Teams chat - which was revealed in the public disclosure request. [00:04:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and - [00:04:08] Heather Weiner: I wonder why all those text messages between Best and Durkan were lost forever. [00:04:13] Crystal Fincher: Lost forever. [00:04:14] Heather Weiner: Oops, I dropped my phone in saltwater. [00:04:17] Crystal Fincher: And there's still an ongoing investigation into that. As a reminder, public employees can't delete records, not disclosable records. And this may be something for - we've talked about this before in the program - but for people outside of government, outside of politics, outside of that world may be like - Texts, they're deleted. I delete texts all the time. Everyone in the public sector knows that you don't do this. There are people in positions who handle these. You're constantly getting - Hey, this request came, do you have this document? Or where was this? We're responding to this. This is a regular course of business, and they clearly were trying to hide what was happening. Big controversy - texts from Carmen Best, from Mayor Durkan were deleted. Mayor Durkan is a former federal prosecutor who has been living in this world forever, who had to be retrained even on prior issues when she was with the City. And then those mysteriously deleted texts, which looks more and more like they were intentionally deleted in order to hide this information. [00:05:19] Heather Weiner: And now former Chief Best is now directing security at Microsoft, right? She got a nice hefty landing pad there for when she left. And so despite the fact that her veracity and her transparency are now deeply in question, she is getting paid - I'm going to say a lot of money - [00:05:38] Crystal Fincher: Oh, a ton of money. [00:05:39] Heather Weiner: -working across the water for Microsoft. I saw former Mayor Durkan at LAX a couple of weeks ago walking by and I have to say - [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: I was about to be like - in Seattle? I could just see her - [00:05:50] Heather Weiner: No, at LAX - she was walking at LAX. [00:05:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all. [00:05:53] Heather Weiner: I just kind of stopped and looked at her. Of course, she didn't recognize me - who would? But I just - [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: I would, Heather Weiner. [00:05:58] Heather Weiner: Ah, thank you - how many five foot tall - anyway, I'm not going to put myself down. So anyway, I did see her walking by and I did almost want to walk up to her and be like - What were you thinking, lady? But I didn't - nobody's happy transferring planes at LAX - even somebody who did that, I don't need to heckle them. It's also super interesting because there are so many lower-level employees, whether they're employees of the Seattle Police Department or Parks Department or wherever, who know that they will lose their jobs if they delete emails, text messages, anything that is subject to public disclosure requests. And so to have your highest ranking people doing that - you know who has not been mentioned in any of this is the current Chief of Police, who was an Assistant Chief at that time. How is, how, I'm always curious about why Diaz somehow was either not included in this chain, or hasn't ever been implicated in what's going on here. Was he just really - just not involved at all? That's crazy to me. [00:06:56] Crystal Fincher: I have no idea. Also haven't seen his name mentioned in this, but - [00:07:00] Heather Weiner: No, I know. I've asked reporters - Is Diaz literally nowhere here, or did he just do a spectacular job of cleaning out his records? [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:07:09] Heather Weiner: Don't know. [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: Don't know, but this is the saga that won't end. And to your point, this is really about accountability. This is about - do rules apply to everybody, and do people - do public servants have an obligation to the people? [00:07:22] Heather Weiner: You're starting to make a case now about what's happening in the State Legislature with transparency there, and where reporters and open government folks are really putting a lot of pressure on the State Legislature to open up their records. And legislators say - Look, I can't make decisions, I can't go through drafts, I can't do any of this - if I feel like all of it's going to be subject to public scrutiny when it's not final yet. It's legal - involving lawmaking, so therefore it is protected under legal exemptions. What do you think about that? [00:07:52] Crystal Fincher: I wonder why that's different than any of the other legislative bodies, like city councils across the state or county councils, who have more generous and open transparency policies. And again, this is happening on the public dime. There is a measure of accountability here, especially when so consistently through these records requests, we find out such egregious information. Just as a reminder - it wasn't any external investigation, it was a public records request that - in the City of Kent - uncovered that there was a Nazi assistant police chief. And that is a literal statement - literal Nazi, with Nazi symbols, and a Hitler mustache, and literally all of that - that only came to light because of public disclosure requests. And in this time where we have so many fewer reporters covering what's happening across the state and they only make it to the biggest things because they're stretched that thin, transparency becomes even more important. Because there may not be someone there to answer the questions, to cover how something came to be - this is our only record of how it came to be. And people should see who is influencing policy. [00:08:58] Heather Weiner: Right, and how the sausage was made. Listeners, you will be shocked to hear that good and bad politicians out there get around this by using their personal phones. Now, they're not supposed to use their personal phones for official taxpayer funded business, but they do. And so even if we did get a lot of those text message records about what was happening around the East Precinct, one can imagine that probably there was a lot of conversations going on - unrecorded conversations on the phone, in person, undocumented conversations, but also conversations on personal cell phones. Now again, I just want to point out - if any other lower-level employees were caught doing this, they would be fired, right? Cops would be sent to OPA. All kinds of things would happen. But when you're a higher-level political appointee, apparently, you get off scot-free. [00:09:41] Crystal Fincher: You do. [00:09:42] Heather Weiner: Speaking of cops - you want to talk about the Blake - what's happening with Blake, and what's happening there? [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, let's talk about what's happening with the Blake decision. So we just had the end of the legislative session - a lot of bills were passed before then, but some of the most contentious bills took 'til the very last day or two to get decided. [00:10:04] Heather Weiner: Last hour. Oh my - as usual - I just feel for everybody working three in the morning, four in the morning. It must be just absolutely exhausting. [00:10:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, when the Legislature does that - just the amount of work that support staff have to do to support the entire operation, to keep information moving under these incredibly tight deadlines. They're working so hard and so long. I think - so the Blake fix, in year's time? Time is an interesting thing for me these days. A few years back - yeah, our State - [00:10:35] Heather Weiner: Not yesterday, but also not 10 years ago. [00:10:37] Crystal Fincher: Yes. More than a year ago, less than 10 years ago - which anything in that zone consistently gets confused for me now. Yes. Our State Supreme Court invalidated - basically said the law about personal possession of substances, of drugs, was invalidated - took the law away. And so it instantly made possession of drugs legal. There was nothing illegal to do with the possession that didn't do with anything with paraphernalia, with selling or distribution, all those other peripheral things still remained in place. But for possession - [00:11:14] Heather Weiner: Personal use possession. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Yes. And so under a certain threshold, or thresholds that come into play sometimes in policy with this. So in year before last, our Legislature - this happened during the legislative session, actually. And so they said - Oh my goodness, we can't let this stand. Even though best practices, sound public policy says that our really expensive and damaging War on Drugs has failed and treating substance abuse issues like a public health crisis and problem is the way to make progress in actually dealing with addiction, actually getting people off of drugs and getting people healthier, and reducing all the impacts surrounding that by crime and different things. But our Legislature basically said - We are not comfortable with that, and so we're going to re-institute a penalty - a misdemeanor - add some diversion in there, fund some kind of diversion-root-cause-drug-court-type things across the state. But they put a sunset clause in that law and said basically - Summer 2023, this is going to sunset, basically expire and terminate on its own. And in the meantime, that'll give us time to figure out something else that we want to do, or stay on the course. But the concern about invalidating that law at the state level was that municipalities, localities, counties, and cities, and towns can make their own laws if they want to in the absence of a state law on that issue. So some have said - Well, it's going to be more confusing to have a patchwork of different drug possession laws across the state, which is not ideal. It's not ideal. But the question is - is that more harmful than what this proposed fix was, which wound up being a gross misdemeanor - which is different than a simple misdemeanor and can come with sometimes financial penalties and jail time that exceeds that of the lowest level felonies. And so from a - we have talked about on this show - but jail, carceral solutions, do not reduce recidivism any more than non-carceral solutions. Throwing someone in jail doesn't reduce their likelihood of committing a crime in the future. And certainly in the case of substance use disorder, it does not address any of the issues about that. And all it does is destabilize and usually throw people further into addiction, further away from being able to rebuild their lives and get healthy again. So this debate is taking place, while evidence and data and lots of people are saying that. But you also have people who really advocate for punitive punishment measures. And even though we have spent decades and billions, if not trillions, of dollars on this War on Drugs, domestically and internationally, it's as bad as it's ever been. [00:14:06] Heather Weiner: Yeah, and it's a war on people who have an illness. It is a disease. And it's a public health issue, not a crime issue. And so to put people in jail who have alcoholism - we've already been shown that does not work. It's the same thing with addictions to other substances. It just doesn't work. And in fact, you're right - it makes it worse. So now we see local folks - Reagan Dunn, three of our City Councilmembers here in Seattle - who are proposing instituting their own gross misdemeanor rules in their jurisdictions. And it's going to cost more in taxpayer dollars to house people in jail - who are going through withdrawal, who are going to have massive health problems, and then are going to get out and not have money and not have support - than it would to put them in housing. [00:14:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And to - [00:14:56] Heather Weiner: And if the real problem here is that we, as the public, don't want to see people suffering on the street - how is it that paying more for them to go into jail than to put them into supportive housing is going to solve the problem? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not a solution. It is painting over the parts of your house that are disintegrating, that are moldy and disintegrating, and they're trying to paint it over instead of dealing with the leak in the first place. Wow. That was a really stretched out analogy. Not sure that anybody should use that. All right, anyway. So it doesn't make any sense to me - you're right. It's political posturing, coming into election time and municipal election time. Yeah, it's going to be super interesting to see how this is used. And the local news media has been doing this, not just here in Washington state but around the country, has been using this fear around people who have a disease - and they are using that as a fear to other people, but also to cause political dissension in our country. And it is not as bad in Seattle as everybody is saying. Yes, we do have a problem, but it is not as bad as what the news is portraying. It is part of the fear mongering. [00:16:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I don't think there's anyone who really, who doesn't want to do more to address this problem or doesn't acknowledge that substance use disorder is a problem - that we don't want to be seeing this, that it can lead to other things. We all know and understand that. We just want to do something that actually fixes it instead of landing us in the same place we've been for the last 30, 40 years under this War on Drugs, where we just punitively punish people for that. And - [00:16:38] Heather Weiner: For a disease. [00:16:39] Crystal Fincher: For a disease and I - or, there are also people who just use substances who are not addicted and based on what we classify as an illegal drug or not - there are people who drink alcohol socially. [00:16:53] Heather Weiner: I'm one. [00:16:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a drug. [00:16:54] Heather Weiner: I'm one. I have been seen with - the fact that the mayor is now proposing open container rules in certain neighborhoods, where people can walk around with open containers - but they're not allowed to be seen with a different substance? Yeah, just the irony, the inconsistency - call Alanis Morissette. [00:17:10] Crystal Fincher: The irony and inconsistency and - look, drug laws, very punitive drug laws have been a major contributor to mass incarceration, to an incredibly disproportionate impact on Black and Brown people. And what we're seeing now. Yeah, I have some thoughts. So one - [00:17:32] Heather Weiner: Do you? [00:17:33] Crystal Fincher: I do. [00:17:33] Heather Weiner: Maybe you should start a podcast. [00:17:35] Crystal Fincher: This should not be a surprise to a lot of people. But this posturing and grandstanding, just - number one, there is talk of a special session. And they're trying to figure out if they can get to a place on this, where they can agree and do something that's actively being talked about. There may be a special session. This has been reported on. So because they're working on this and because people at the county level are talking about dealing with this - all this talk from mayors and city council members is just premature. It's putting the cart before the horse. And it's grandstanding. And it's so plain to see. Allow the people who are working on this to continue working on this. Notice they didn't have any issue with doing that over the past few years. They just recognize that - Ooh, maybe this is an issue we can capitalize on. But I would caution them that it didn't turn out too well for them last year when they tried to bombard, to flood the zone with all of the voter, direct voter contact, media talking about crime and drugs. And they're gonna try and crack down and make drugs illegal again, all that kind of stuff. [00:18:48] Heather Weiner: Look, let's go ahead and let's blame people who are actually symptoms of the larger problem. And the problem is number one, we don't have enough affordable housing. Number two, we have a ton of people who are suffering from trauma and for all different kinds of way - whether it's in the military, in their own households, in their own family. And one of the ways that the body responds to trauma is to try to find a way to not feel the trauma. And that's a lot of what substance use disorder is. Three, we - the Republicans and some Democrats 12 years ago - cut massive funding from mental health and addiction services. And now we don't have enough places for people to go, as we see where the hospitals are overloaded with people who are suffering from mental health disorders. And now the chickens have come to roost. Look, I brought it back to chickens. [00:19:33] Crystal Fincher: There you go. You have brought it back, we're full circle. [00:19:36] Heather Weiner: Brought it back to chickens, to the chickens. [00:19:39] Crystal Fincher: To the chickens. [00:19:40] Heather Weiner: So these are all symptoms of this massive problem. Inslee tried to do something where he wanted to float a massive bond to raise money for housing - that didn't pay out. Some Democrats at least tried to raise some money from a REET on luxury housing and massive buildings that would fund affordable housing - a tax on real estate sales. The real estate lobby killed, the realtor lobby killed that. We tried to get rental caps this year to make sure that landlords, corporate landlords are not egregiously raising rents and causing economic evictions and destabilizing communities - that didn't pass. So let's just crack down on people and put them in jail. Are the jails empty? Is that what's going on? Is there a massive demand? [00:20:20] Crystal Fincher: Oh, totally empty. We're totally not experiencing issues of overcrowding, suicides, deaths from illness, injuries, understaffing - none of that is a problem that they're actively having to spend millions of dollars to deal with and facing lawsuits. No, not a problem at all. But yes, that whole situation is there. So we'll see how this unfolds. But I also want to - some people have tried to characterize this as a Democrat versus Republican issue - on the drug - it is not. This is an issue where there are a variety of stances on the Democratic and Republican side, really. And Democrats control the Legislature and they came forward with a bill, after all the talk and compromise, that landed at gross misdemeanor. The sky-is-falling argument was - Well, we have to do this because otherwise they're going to really criminalize it locally. So this is good enough. I have noticed that no proposal from conservative or Republican mayors or city councils have gone further than the Democratic legislature did. So were they negotiating themselves down? Again? [00:21:21] Heather Weiner: Fair. [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: And is what we're actually going to wind up with worse than having that statewide? Would we rather have a significant recriminalization statewide, or have lower penalties and more treatment access across the board, or in more places in the state? That's something that they're going to have to deal with, but - [00:21:41] Heather Weiner: When do we think this special session might be called? It feels like there is a hard deadline, right? Of June. [00:21:47] Crystal Fincher: It feels like it, but I don't know. I have no inside information on those conversations or anything. [00:21:53] Heather Weiner: And when they have a special session, they can only address the issue that the special session has been called for. So there's no sneaking other things in there at the same time, which is good. Although there's a lot of things that were left unfinished. [00:22:04] Crystal Fincher: There is. And also legislators don't like special sessions often because it takes them away from campaigning - because they can't raise money while they're in session. [00:22:14] Heather Weiner: That's another reason why we need a full-time legislature and not a legislature where people have other jobs that they have to go do. They're paid so little, they have to have other jobs. And as a result, they just don't have time to do all the things that need to get done. And they don't have time to do it in a really thoughtful way, unfortunately - that things do get rushed. [00:22:30] Crystal Fincher: And that's why we have a disproportionate amount of wealthy and out-of-touch people in our legislators. [00:22:36] Heather Weiner: And white. Yes. And why we keep losing our legislators of color. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: Talking about some of the other things you touched on that we were able to see at the conclusion of the Legislature, of this legislative session - certainly, as we talked about last week, some significant movement on some housing bills. But as you mentioned, no relief for renters, which is a major component of keeping people in housing, preventing displacement, and keeping housing more affordable. [00:23:03] Heather Weiner: Yeah. 40% of Washingtonians are renters - 40%. That's a significant portion. And our rents are skyrocketing. There's articles in Crosscut about Walla Walla - retirees who are getting pushed out, they're having to do all kinds of crazy things in order to keep their housing. And a lot of this is because corporate landlords are using algorithms - kind of like what Airbnb does - to jack up prices in response to how the other corporate landlords are doing things. And so I wouldn't really call it collusion, but they are using these formulas to maximize the amount of profit that they make. And as a result, what we're seeing is massive community destabilization. Single parents with children have to move their kids from school district to school district. Retirees, our elders are leaving their neighbors - they don't know anybody around them, they don't know how to ask for help. Our veterans, who may already be facing a lot of challenges, are also being moved and destabilized. It's not good for communities. It's not good for Washington state. And when I see things like in today's news where they say - Half of people are thinking about moving out of Washington state - they don't really say why, but the reason is the rent is too high. It's time for the State Legislature to do something to provide relief for 40% of the state's residents. And I myself am a landlord - I have a small house that I rent out and I 100%, like many landlords, support rent caps and rent stabilization. [00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I didn't even know you were a landlord. [00:24:36] Heather Weiner: Well, landlady. I don't know. It's kind of gendered. [00:24:40] Crystal Fincher: And yeah - I could talk a lot about that. But there are, we are suffering certainly at the hands of big corporate landlords. And they love nothing more than to try and paint all of the landlords - it's we're just little ma and pa, just we just had an extra house, and we're just out of the kindness of our hearts, just being housing providers. Some lobbyists are calling them housing providers. They're not housing providers. They're housing dealers. [00:25:05] Heather Weiner: I know - it's like job creators, right? [00:25:07] Crystal Fincher: Which is fine, but let's call it what it is. [00:25:10] Heather Weiner: Look, the way that the law was drafted, that was supported by the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, the way that the law was drafted is for the first 10 years of a building's - that a building is, or a unit, is being rented out - there's no rental cap on there as it adjusts to the market rate, figures out what's going on. And then you could always increase the rent once somebody moves out. But if somebody is living in that unit, you can't raise the rent - according to this law, you couldn't raise the rent more than 7% based on inflation and essentially economically evict them. And there is nothing wrong with that. There were lots of landlords who came out - family, mom and pop landlords, like me - who came out and said - Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. That's what I would like to do. But it's the big corporate real estate lobby that once again came in and killed it. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - once again. And so I guess what I would say is - there was a big, broad coalition that was put together by the legislators who sponsored this legislation - by organizations, activists, Futurewise certainly was huge in helping to get this passed. I hope that coalition stands up as strongly over the next year - through the next session - for mitigations, for rent relief, for helping people stay in their homes. Because that is as critical to getting costs in line, to keeping people in the communities where they are and their houses where they are, and reducing homelessness. It is as critical - this isn't an either-or - this is we absolutely need both. And so I hope this coalition continues to show up for the communities that have showed up for them and work to get this passed. Also, just want to talk about a couple other things they were highlighting. The budget was worked on until the very end. Democrats are touting investments in ferries, some modest investments in traffic safety. We had the first allocation of funds from the Climate Commitment Act that came in - still need to dig more into that to see where it's going and if they are living up to their promises to make sure that they are centering communities that are most impacted by climate change and pollution. And also workforce investments, workforce equity investments across the board. They did increase the cap for special education, which does increase funding, but not nearly at the level that is needed. There was a bill that didn't make it through that started off as free lunch for everyone, which we've talked about a few times before on this show, which - was a huge supporter of and thinking that - Of course, that totally makes sense. How is this controversial? Unfortunately it was - there was a trimmed down bill that increased access, that increased the number of people that could get school lunch programs. Basically, I think it's in schools or districts that met a certain threshold - if a kid asked for a free lunch, then it could be given to them in those districts. I want to say that it was 50 - I'm just throwing out numbers, but I'll figure that out and put it in the resources and show notes. But it was a trimmed down bill. A lot of good things happened - like many sessions - a lot of good things happened. A lot of disappointing things happen, and we just move forward and we continue to work and we continue to push and we hopefully continue to hold our legislators accountable for the decisions that they're making. [00:28:29] Heather Weiner: Let's have - let's end on a good note, on a positive note. Here's some good news. So article just came out in Bloomberg Tax - I know you read that every morning, Crystal, I know you do - and the new capital gains tax that was passed about two years ago is now finally being collected. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that it was legal and it's now being collected for the first time. There were estimates by policy experts that it would be, probably in the first year, somewhere around $450, maybe $500 million raised from taxes on the sales of huge stock market gains. Doesn't apply to 99.8% of us. And they thought it would raise maybe $500 million. According to the Department of Revenue, $833 million raised for schools, childcare, preschool, and other education. Amazing amount of money. But here's what you got to think about is how rich are people that they are having stock market gains where a 7% tax on their stock market gains over a quarter of a million dollars is raising nearly a billion. That's a lot of money being moved between stocks over there in rich people land. I couldn't believe it. It blows my mind. [00:29:37] Crystal Fincher: It is - absolutely, and more there. So I also hope that the work of the wealth tax picks up next session because it's absolutely needed and we can see how much of an impact that it does make. Also, we had a special election this week. In King County, there were - depending on where you were at - everyone voted on the Crisis Care Centers Levy, which passed. And so we are going to be having five new regional crisis care centers in the County. There are also provisions for helping to boost the workforce, increase the staffing levels in an area that's already really stressed and really hurting for staff. And what was your take on this? [00:30:18] Heather Weiner: I think it's great, but also people are going to come into these crisis centers and where are they going to send them? There's not any housing. So I think it's a great idea. It's a good first step to get people through. But I'm concerned that you're still in crisis at the end of the day. [00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I feel similarly - a lot is going to be about the implementation. We absolutely need more resources. And if this is done well, and if this is done right, it'll be helpful. We have also heard a ton of stories about challenging care, especially when that care is involuntary - when someone is in a major crisis. And so I think it's going to be really paying attention to the implementation of this and making sure that they are following best practices, and that people are treated with dignity and respect, and really the focus is on their healing over everything else. We'll see how it turns out, but I deem it to be a helpful - these are absolutely resources that we need. And we can do this better than we have done it before. And we should - we owe it to everyone to do that, so we'll see. Also, Kent School District had a bond vote, also on this same ballot, that failed. School bonds raise for buildings, for capital expenditures - those races, elections carry a higher threshold to pass a bond. It's 60% as opposed to 50% - which is a big, big difference between 60% and 50%, when you just look at elections across the board. This one actually didn't even make 50%. And I, once again, am begging school boards, people in school districts to stop putting these ballot measures on special election ballots. Put it on the general election ballot. If you must, put it on the primary ballot. But stick to those, especially in a district like King County, when turnout is everything. When it comes to these school levies, school bonds - having them in higher turnout elections obviously is going to increase the support. In the same way that we know in Seattle - if it's a very high turnout election, that's going to be a more progressive election than a really low turnout election. So let's just stop doing this, please. Do you have any thoughts about special elections and school levies? [00:32:25] Heather Weiner: Look, the big thing is we keep going back to the people over and over again to pass what are essentially regressive taxes, whether it's for the school levies or for the crisis center. I want to point out that one of the major funders of the crisis center levy - which I supported - one of the major funders was John Stanton, who is on the wall of shame for his work to kill the capital gains tax, to hit up the taxpayers to pay for his stadium to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet he wants to put a regressive tax on the rest of us. The solution here is not to keep passing, or trying to pass, these little regressive taxes to patch the leaky roof. See, I'm back to that analogy. It is to pass wealth tax and other taxes on the incredibly super rich billionaires and ultra millionaires that we have in this state. [00:33:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 28th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner, that's W-E-I-N-E-R. You can follow me on Twitter at Hacks & Wonks - that's @HacksWonks. Or you can follow me on Twitter @finchfrii, or on Blue Sky, or basically any platform at finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical and Friday week-in-review shows to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at official hacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

The Washington Supreme Court's ruling last week to allow the state's capital gains tax could bring a windfall for public education.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Guy Oron, Staff Reporter for Real Change! They start with a discussion of Friday's Washington Supreme Court ruling that the capital gains tax is constitutional and what that means for the state's residents. Then they discuss a tragic eviction in Seattle and a court ruling that landlords can ask about criminal records.  They chat about Howard Schultz stepping down early as the CEO of Starbucks, workers protesting before their annual shareholder meeting, and some shareholders' and white collar workers' desire for Starbucks to improve their behavior and relations with unionizing workers. They follow with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce's desire to gut JumpStart tax funds for downtown, despite the popularity of the tax and need for continued investment in other neighborhoods and small businesses.  They close with a discussion of where the Sound Transit CID station debate stands, as well as talk about the significance of Pierce County passing a local tax to fund housing services. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Guy Oron at @GuyOron.   Guy Oron Guy Oron is the Staff Reporter for Real Change, covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics. His writing has been featured in a number of publications including the South Seattle Emerald, The Nation and The Stranger. Raised in Seattle, Guy brings a community and student organizer perspective to their journalism, highlighting stories of equity and justice.   Resources Dahlia Bazzaz and What's Happening in Washington Education from Hacks & Wonks   WA Supreme Court upholds capital gains tax by David Gutman and Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times    Seattle landlords can ask about criminal records, court rules by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times   Councilmember Invites Landlord Who's Suing City to Lead “Housing Provider” Panel from PubliCola   Seattle DSA Statement on the Death of Eucy Following the Attempt to Evict Her by King County Deputies | Seattle DSA   Will City Hall give downtown Seattle a tax break? by John O'Brien and Dyer Oxley from KUOW    Howard Schultz Will Step Down From Starbucks to Spend Less Time Getting Owned by Union Organizers by Tori Otten from The New Republic   Starbucks workers protest before annual shareholder meeting from The Associated Press   Starbucks shareholders to vote on proposals for labor probe, succession planning by Amelia Lucas from CNBC   Comptroller Lander and Coalition of Investors File Shareholder Proposal at Starbucks on the Rights of Workers to Organize | NYC Comptroller   Placement of future CID light rail station sparks heated debate, strains relations by Guy Oron from Real Change    What We Know About Sound Transit's Alternatives to a Chinatown Station by Doug Trumm and Stephen Fesler from The Urbanist   Sound Transit is Not Ready for Its Big Chinatown Station Decision from The Urbanist Editorial Board       Light Rail Board Members Seek Middle Ground as Plan to Skip Chinatown, Midtown Stations Moves Forward by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   From the Other Side of I-5: Little Saigon Weighs In On Sound Transit's Light Rail Expansion In the CID by Friends of Little Sài Gòn for PubliCola   Preserve Chinatown or Fuck Over Transit Riders Forever? by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Pierce County just passed a new tax and funded a homeless village. That's a big deal by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune   Pierce County Council votes on sales tax to address housing crisis. Here's the decision by Becca Most from The News Tribune   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, Seattle Times reporter Dahlia Bazzaz returned with a rundown of education issues across Washington state, including why budgets are a mess, how the Washington State Legislature is and isn't addressing it, the Wahkiakum Schools lawsuit addressing capital construction costs, and shifts in enrollment patterns in Washington schools. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: Staff Reporter for Real Change covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics, Guy Oron. Hey! [00:01:30] Guy Oron: Hi, thank you - I'm so glad to be here. [00:01:32] Crystal Fincher: I'm so excited to have you here - have been appreciating your coverage of all of those issues for a while now, so excited to be able to talk about the news this week. And we just got a big piece of breaking news this morning - finding out that the capital gains tax has been found, by our Washington State Supreme Court, to be constitutional. What did they say? [00:01:59] Guy Oron: Yeah, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the capital gains tax is not a property tax and that it is legal, which is a huge win for the Washington Democrats and the governor, who signed the bill into law in 2021. [00:02:15] Crystal Fincher: Yes, absolutely. There was question about - okay, we have - our State Constitution prevents an income tax from being enacted, any graduated income tax is not considered constitutional at this time. This didn't address that issue - basically it accepted that the capital gains tax is an excise tax, so the Court didn't visit, revisit all the rulings that classify income as property and that being a way to clear the way for a graduated income tax. We will address that a different day at some point, I'm sure, but for now, the capital gains tax is found to be constitutional. And this is really big for a lot of funding going for schools, for daycare, for a lot of family support. And this is a tax that is going to only impact - what is it - the top 0.2% of Washingtonians, I think that was, while easing some of the burden or allowing people who are lower income, middle income to really get more bang for their buck in the types of services that are going to be provided here. [00:03:24] Guy Oron: Yeah, it's really a game changer because the state has operated for so many years on this austerity mindset where they have to decide between schools and other public services. And so this will give some breathing room for families, the vast majority of families in the state. [00:03:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So looking forward to see this implementation continue - yeah, and so with only two-tenths of 1% of Washington taxpayers seeing enough profits on capital gains to pay this tax - which is a 7% tax on stock sales, extraordinary profits exceeding $250,000 annually - exempting real estate, retirement accounts like IRAs, family-owned small businesses and farms, among other things. It is just something that lots of people have been waiting to find out if this is going to go through, and that will enable about $500 million extra a year to be raised, just from this tax on two-tenths of a percent of Washington state residents. Also this week, we got news that a landlord court case - another one decided - that it is not legal for the legislation that Seattle passed - to try and help ease people back into the community, help people with access to housing who have been convicted or previously incarcerated - preventing landlords from being able to ask on an application if someone has been convicted of a crime before. That was ruled unconstitutional - landlords can do that, continue to do that. How do you think this is going to play out? [00:05:10] Guy Oron: Yeah, I was very surprised by the Ninth Circuit's reasoning - because on the one hand, they acknowledged the importance of remedying discrimination against people who have been incarcerated. But on the other hand, they ruled that it was too broad - banning landlords from finding out someone's criminal history. And so it does seem like there's still room for the City to challenge the ruling and try to still mitigate that, but it is a blow for renters and people who are fighting against the criminal legal system and trying to get folks reintegrated into society after experiencing the harms of mass incarceration. [00:05:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that's so major, because so many people have had some kind of conviction or even just an arrest. Yes, especially with so many people who have convictions - because we have been in this era of mass incarceration, a significant percentage of our community has been arrested, has been convicted of some crime at some point in time. And we talk about the housing crisis, homelessness crisis - people not being able to afford homes - but also being able to qualify for an apartment, to be able to rent a place is challenging. And if we're serious about wanting to create a safer community, wanting to create a community where more people can have their needs met, where fewer people are victimized or harmed - certainly helping to make sure that people have access to housing is one of the most basic and fundamental things we can do. So there still - once again, is a significant percentage of people in Seattle, but obviously most other cities have not passed this legislation - and so lots of people across the state still facing challenges being able to access housing overall. So we'll see what the response to this is, but definitely a challenge. Also in the news this week is a really unfortunate - really, really tragic - story this week of a really fatal eviction where a young woman ended up taking her own life, where a deputy was shot, and just a tragedy that unfolded because of an eviction - an attempt to serve an eviction notice and forcefully evict this - which really seemed to throw this person into crisis. And the community overall has really largely reacted to this and I've actually been, through this tragedy, heartened to see the reporting from a variety of news outlets really talking about the root causes of this issue - in failing to take action to keep people in their homes, to prevent eviction - resulted in so many people getting harmed, and so many people being less safe, so many people being scarred after this, and a life being lost. How do you see this? [00:08:24] Guy Oron: Yeah, it's just such a tragic incident. I know Eucy was a member of the Seattle DSA community and of mutual aid and other community organizations in Seattle and so I just - my heart goes out to her and everyone who was touched by her presence in the community. I think this case really is the tip of the iceberg, and really shows the structural violence of evictions and our current housing crisis. And so many people have - it's so violent that people have to move every six months, every year or two, every time they get a rent increase. And you just think about children and having to switch schools every year. You have to think about the mental health impacts and stress that it takes to not only find a deposit and pay all the short-term rental fees on top of rent, but also just how difficult it is to exist in society when rents are so high. And so this case really shows how difficult and how much violence our current housing system inflicts on people. [00:09:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and we can do better. We have to do better, we need to do better. And that's the thing that gets me with so much of this. Some of the discourse I see or talk - What are you talking about? Why are you even, basically, caring about the humanity of this person? A law enforcement officer was shot, and we should note that we do not know by whom at this point in time. We do know that Eucy died by suicide. And just a really unfortunate situation. And if we get away from blame, if we get away from this kind of toxic discourse that talks about - if people deserve help, deserve a second chance, deserve grace, deserve housing, deserve basic needs met - when we don't focus on that and we allow things to get this far down the road, it is very expensive. As a community - beyond the life lost - this is destabilizing for a ton of people. This has endangered law enforcement lives - this is not good for them either - this is putting them in danger and in harm's way. It's hard to see who wins. Certainly a landlord now has a clear house, but at what cost? The cost is so high, it doesn't have to be that high. We can do better than this. And I think this underscores the real toll that is taken - we hear statistics a lot of times - and the eviction moratorium saved this many people from being evicted. But when you look at the cost of one person, the impact of one person - it really underscores how urgent it is to act to keep people in their homes, to get their basic needs met, and to find a different way that takes into consideration the health and safety of the community in a much better way than we do now. Also this week, we learned that the Chamber is interested in looting the JumpStart Tax and lowering the B&O Tax in an attempt to jumpstart and revitalize downtown. What's your take on this? [00:11:57] Guy Oron: I think it is very much out of step with much of the community right now that are suffering. We know that during the COVID-19 pandemic, small businesses, workers, even people who work in white collar jobs - right now with all the layoffs going on - are suffering. For example, with the interest rates, it's really hitting - we've seen with SVB's bank shutting down, it's really hitting the tech sector hard. And so most of the economy and most people are suffering. The one group that hasn't been suffering very much are people who own land, and property, and businesses. And to see the Chamber of Commerce, which represents organizations like Starbucks, like Amazon - all these companies which have reported record earnings in the last year - all of them now targeting this small tax, which is a couple million dollars for some of these businesses. In total, I think less than $300 million a year is raised through the JumpStart Tax, if I'm not mistaken. And so it seems like they're trying to take advantage of the economic downturn to redistribute more wealth from workers to the rich. And I think for folks who want to advocate for the whole community and not just a small segment, they should really be skeptical of the claims the Chamber's making. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is part of the ongoing conversation of revitalizing the downtown core. Lots of concern is being heard from people who want to "get back to normal" - whatever that is - from pre-pandemic times, where people were going into the office five days a week. Because of the way that our downtown, many downtowns are designed - people commute in to the downtown core and they commute out of the downtown core. And so much of the businesses, services, structure of downtown, economic structure of downtown is based on just that - servicing commuters, so restaurants and services. But really it's a different downtown after 6-7 PM with so many people clearing out. Through the pandemic, certainly people reduced going to the office. Now patterns have changed where we're seeing less than half, about half of what pre-pandemic foot traffic from people who work downtown was - which is impacting many businesses, which is concerning a lot of people. I think the question really is - should we keep chasing the structure and economy of yesterday that just doesn't look like it is relevant or valid moving forward into the future? If we want to consider downtown just for commuters and focus on the revitalization efforts, return-to-work efforts, and everything going there - we miss the opportunity to make a downtown for today and tomorrow. To make a downtown that's a cultural destination, that's a community destination, and not just a business and commuting destination. I put that just there - businesses are absolutely vital - we need jobs, we need people hiring and thriving, and we certainly need a healthy economy. But again, at what cost? The reason why we have the JumpStart Tax is because most people recognize that businesses, especially the larger businesses, were not paying what most people considered to be their fair share. And this imposes a fee on every employee making over $150,000 for businesses of a certain size. So really it's about mitigating the impacts that their employees have, that their business has instead of solely reaping the benefits of all of the resources - human and otherwise, that this community provides - that they are able to use to drive up the record profits that you referenced. So it's a really interesting conversation. And the other interesting dimension is - certainly, downtown is an important, vital neighborhood. So are lots of other Seattle neighborhoods. And we're now in a situation - once again, in a situation where downtown is really asking for resources from other neighborhoods. And are other neighborhoods are gonna settle for that? Are residents of other areas gonna say - We have to address housing in our neighborhood. We have to address crime in our neighborhood. We need to make our streets safer, healthier. There's so much on the docket to do. Do we need to be taking money out and deprioritizing our needs to move more money over, redirect money to downtown and those purposes - which goes against the JumpStart Tax, which is very popular with Seattle residents and really bailed the City out of a really harmful budget shortfall. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this shapes up - seems like every election is, at the end of the day for the Seattle Chamber and many large corporations, a referendum on taxes for them and an attempt to reduce taxation for them. So we'll see how this all unfolds, but certainly interesting to follow. And once again, we're seeing what's behind a lot of the rhetoric and candidates that we're hearing from out there - and really another bullseye on the JumpStart Tax. In related big corporate news, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is stepping down. What did we hear with this news? [00:17:49] Guy Oron: Yeah, it was a bit of a surprise just because he was slated to step down at the start of April, and he ended up stepping down two weeks early. This comes as he's been engulfed in a lot of controversy over retaliation against union organizers. At the same time, Starbucks has been making record profits alongside other corporations. And this kind of motivated the union to hold a big rally on Wednesday, and there were hundreds of union members and supporters who showed up in SoDo. At the same time, over a hundred stores across the country went on strike as well. And I think this is a turning point. I think we might see some change. It also happened, this also happened at the same time as a shareholder meeting, where there were multiple resolutions sponsored by different shareholders who are concerned about the impact that union busting might have on the reputation of the company. And so it'll be interesting to see if the pressure from workers from the bottom and pressure from some stakeholders and shareholders will together combine to make some change. And maybe we'll see a shift from Starbucks corporate to be a little more amenable to the union. [00:19:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's gonna be interesting. Like you said, they have their annual shareholders meeting. Starbucks is important - it's a big corporation - but it's a big corporation that seems as dedicated as any corporation to union busting in every single way that they possibly can. Howard Schultz was certainly the union buster-in-chief and union busted in ways that were not just distasteful and unethical, but also illegal. The National Labor Relations Board found many instances of illegal union busting activity. And so they seem to be on the tip of the spear of being willing to do whatever they feel it takes to battle unions, whether it's shutting down stores and trying to do the redirection by blaming crime - but the stores that they're shutting down seem to just predominantly be stores that are attempting to unionize, or just don't fit within their profit plans. But also just the amount of hostility towards workers - firing people who are organizing, wielding benefits as a weapon - there was coverage before of potentially even using gender affirming care, women's reproductive care as a wedge issue in attempts to unionize. It is just really unfortunate. And so there were some votes on whether to reassess their labor stance in the shareholder meeting. I don't know how much is gonna come from that - those are certainly non-binding. There is some shareholder sentiment to, at least in terms of rhetoric and outward appearance - from at least a marketing perspective - to not be so hostile to workers, as more and more people across the country definitely understand the plight that their workers are going through more than the plight of the CEO and the highly-paid executives fighting against people just being able to afford the basic necessities of life. So we'll see how Starbucks' new CEO, how their shareholders try and push the corporation - but they've got a long way to go. And certainly even if they were to change some rhetoric, lots of people would need to see changes in behavior - immediate good-faith negotiation with many stores that have opted to unionize that now need to negotiate their contracts and seeing them. But it seems also - as we talked about, I think last week or week before - white collar workers in Starbucks headquarters have also voiced concerns and are calling on Starbucks to do better for their workers. So we'll see how this continues to unfold, and how the new CEO stakes their claim and what path they set. Other really big news this week, in the Puget Sound area, is the Sound Transit CID conversation - CID station conversation about where to site stations and spines for the upcoming lines planned for Sound Transit. What is being talked about and what is this about? [00:22:41] Guy Oron: Yeah, this has been a huge issue across Seattle, the Seattle area, for the past couple of weeks. Sound Transit in 2016 passed a ballot measure called ST3, which authorized funding for a new line that would service both Ballard and West Seattle. And now is the process where the agency needs to find locations for a second tunnel and where those stations are gonna be located at. And so over the past couple of years, the Chinatown International District community has really pushed back against some of these plans. Initially the agency really disregarded completely the community perspective and just started drawing on a map. And they drew proposals for Fifth Avenue, which is right next to Uwajimaya and the gate kind of near Chinatown, and that really angered community. And after basically unanimous pushback, they shelved that proposal. And so now they have one proposal for a Fourth Avenue shallower, which would build a station in between Union and King Street Station. And more recently, a couple of months ago, local leaders - Constantine, Dow Constantine and Bruce Harrell - came up with a second proposal to put two stations right outside of the neighborhood, one in Pioneer Square and the other one kind of in the north end of SoDo. And so this proposal was seen as more a way to mitigate some of the direct impacts of construction on the neighborhood, but it's also caused a lot of controversy because it would make transferring from some lines more difficult. Someone who's coming from Ballard and wants to go take the Amtrak, for example - with the north-south proposal, they would have to get off in Pioneer Square and wait another 10 minutes. And similarly, someone coming from the south end, from Rainier Valley, they would also have to either - to get to the Amtrak, they might have to walk another 5-10 minutes. And certain areas of the CID will be farther than with the Fourth Avenue proposal. And so there's a lot of trade-offs in terms of prioritizing transit accessibility, especially if we think about the climate impacts of mitigating car use. And so those are some of the concerns that transit advocates have brought up. And also, some of the progressive organizations in the CID have really pointed to some of the issues with Fourth Avenue, including potentially 9+ years of construction closing down Fourth Avenue and where will all those cars that kind of use it as a mini-highway - where will they go? And they're very concerned that a lot of them will cut through the neighborhood and increase smog and congestion, and make it harder for people who are actually going to the CID to go there and really make the neighborhood much less livable. And so some of these concerns are really important to consider, especially given the history of the City screwing over the neighborhood time and time again - whether it's building I-5 through the neighborhood, the King Dome, and other kind of mega-construction projects that have really devastated communities there. [00:26:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, Sound Transit tunnel, deep-bore tunnel - several projects have caused a lot of harm and strain to the CID. And I think what a lot of people are saying, 'cause some people are just - Construction is construction. Everybody deals with it. You gotta, it's gonna inconvenience some people. But the issue is - man, the CID seems to be expected to absorb the inconvenience much more frequently, similarly to the way we see disinvestment in South Seattle. Some areas of the City - which have predominantly BIPOC, predominantly low income, much higher percentage of disabled residents who are there - and experiencing the harm from these impacts from construction. And they're saying - We're tired of being the people who have to absorb the brunt and the majority of the impact, or we're always on the chopping block when it comes to what we need. And over and over again, we see it happen where we're experiencing challenges that other areas of the City are not expected to deal with to the same degree. And they're sick of it, frankly. And a lot of people are saying - Okay, is there a path forward where we can mitigate some of these impacts while still looking at and studying these other stations? So there was a meeting yesterday where they agreed to move forward on what you were talking about - studying, building out these new options and what the impacts and the ramifications and the actual projected cost is. How do you see the conversation about mitigating the impacts of this station happening? What kinds of things are they talking about? [00:28:03] Guy Oron: Yeah, a big thing is transit, the traffic congestion, and how you would mitigate traffic congestion into the neighborhood, regardless of which proposal Sound Transit takes up. And I think that is something where the agency will have to be a little more robust than just promise. They will have to compensate the neighborhood in various ways, as well as also compensating the First Hill neighborhood, of course - because that neighborhood hasn't really been serviced by either of the proposals, especially areas like Harborview. I think the agency should look into maybe funding more frequent bus service to that neighborhood as well. Another issue is, of course, equitable transit-oriented development. And I think the agency has an opportunity to use some of its eminent domain powers to maybe help construct more affordable housing - because that's a huge concern that wherever you build a new light rail station, developers will buy up the land - and then the prices will go up - and build market-rate apartments and price out a lot of the existing residents. So those are some of the concerns that Sound Transit and local leaders will have to look to address. [00:29:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I guess I gave my two cents before - which isn't really two cents - on the planned station alignments. I do think the community most impacted, most at risk for displacement and harm should be centered in this conversation. There certainly are people on all sides. There's a broad, diverse array of opinions, but we should hear all of those opinions from that community. We're hearing varied concerns from the community. I think my reflection is based on seeing a lot of people discussing this, a lot of people who are not from the community or tied to the community. And looking at transfer times, which is important - rider experience is absolutely important - but as they do that, to continue to focus and highlight and uplift and listen to the concerns of the residents there. So often when we're in these battles - in a lot of people's minds, it's just refute the argument, get them to vote, and move forward. Downplay the argument - No, that's ridiculous. We should move forward with that. That's a bad idea. And what we're hearing from the community is regardless of which option there is, no matter what option we choose, there are challenges that need to be addressed meaningfully. And I would say to those activists - no matter what option you're supporting - mitigation for the CID, mitigation for First Hill needs to be a part of that. And in so many of these proposals, when we wind up in this situation right here - where community is voicing concerns and people outside of the community are making decisions - so often there's rhetoric - We hear you, we'll totally take care of you. But the things they're asking for are not written into legislation. They're just winks and nods and promises and - Don't worry, we'll take care of it. And then when it's time to take care of it - invariably for a variety of reasons - it doesn't get taken care of, the ball gets dropped, promises get broken, things that they were told were possible are no longer possible. And they end up even more jaded than when they began because they voiced their concerns, they were told that they were heard, they were assured that they would be taken care of, and then they were left out to dry. And so I hope advocates for this really focus on listening to the community, amplifying their concerns, and bringing those concerns to electeds and demanding that mitigations be codified as strictly as everything else. And to not just rely on promises and hopes, and we should be able to do that, and if we get funding. If we are concerned about equity in moving forward, then we need to make sure that we're all moving forward together - and that means standing up for voices that are traditionally talked over, minimalized, overlooked, and making sure that they are actually taken care of. Not saying that everyone's gonna walk away from this happy at the end of the day, but we can ensure that fewer people walk away from this harmed at the end of the day. I think that's everybody's responsibility, and they should really reflect on if they are doing that, they should reflect on if they are talking over people, they should reflect on how to amplify voices, and move forward with that in mind. [00:32:48] Guy Oron: And something I really wish was that this conversation didn't get so polarized, and that communities would listen to each other a little more - be more cognizant of the privilege they are coming into these conversations with. And really direct their fire not at each other, but upwards towards the agencies, towards politicians. There's no shortage of places that Sound Transit needs to be held accountable for, and I think it is unfortunate to see some of that energy be directed between different progressive people who want to do right by their communities. And so I would encourage, like you said, hopefully more cognizant, thoughtful advocacy in the future. [00:33:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The last thing we'll cover today is Pierce County passing a local tax to fund housing services. What will this do? The final thing we'll talk about today is the Pierce County Council passing a local tax - one-tenth of 1% sales tax increase - to fund affordable housing, as well as approving a pair of ordinances that set the stage for construction of a micro-housing village for people experiencing chronic homelessness, which is a big deal. It's really a big deal because, as I look at this - and I'm old, so I remember things from a long time ago, a lot of people may not - but this Pierce County Council, Pierce County being purple, the Pierce County Council being split - and being able to pass a tax with a majority is something that would not have happened 10, 15, 20 years ago. This is a council that had a strong Republican majority, and the recently retired Derek Young stepped down - he was term limited out actually from the Pierce County Council - was part of really starting to turn the Pierce County Council and Pierce County policy from red to purple and even blue in many circumstances. This passed with a veto-proof majority. A number of people that Derek Young helped to recruit were there, so now that he is no longer on the council, this is the last piece of legislation passed with him as a prime sponsor. It started while he was still on there, and it is continuing now. But I do think this is a testament to how important local organizing is, how important it is for our elected leaders to continue to build leaders in their community, to help give people opportunities for leadership, and to help shepherd people into positions that can make an impact like this in the community. This is not the first action that Pierce County has taken to address major structural issues - certainly within public health and public health centers, housing, the environment - many different issues that they have taken action on. And now with housing, seemingly still being ahead of our State Legislature and several other cities here. But I just think it is something that will absolutely do good and that is possible, was made possible by some real serious continued organizing and investment and leadership from people and leaders within that community. So excited to see that, excited to see another major city in the state take a significant step to try and address this housing affordability and homelessness crisis that we have, with significant investments and delivering on what voters basically have given people a mandate to do. Voters are expecting action to address this housing affordability crisis and homelessness crisis. And can talk about minor changes in policies and this and that, but until we actually make solid investments, have dedicated revenue streams to fund continual improvements, we're not gonna make the progress that we need to. And so kudos to the council Democrats on the Pierce County Council for passing this, despite some opposition from Republicans there - but definitely delivering for what the voters have asked for in Pierce County. [00:37:00] Guy Oron: Yeah, this new tax really shows that leaders across the state are starting to take this - the housing and homelessness issue - seriously, and really understand how dire the situation is. So it's great to see other counties, like Pierce County, start to take action and so I commend them. [00:37:20] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, March 24th, 2023. I can't believe it's so late in March, but I can believe my brackets are on fire - okay, I just had to throw that in. It's March Madness, my brackets are amazing at the moment - we'll see if that still holds by next week. But thank you for listening. This show is produced by Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Staff Reporter for Real Change covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics, Guy Oron. You can find Guy on Twitter @GuyOron, G-U-Y-O-R-O-N. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, it's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. And if you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled in a 7-2 decision to uphold the state's new capital gain tax.

Senator John Fetterman's (D-PA) health concerns have been front and center since he checked himself into Walter Reed Medical Center for depression. Questions have been raised about what can be done if a legislator faces debilitating health risks. FOX News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram is joined by FOX News White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, as they discuss what could be done if an elected official is found unfit for office, the public outcry for younger candidates, and the criticism of President Biden for not being more willing to address the media.   Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has shielded social media companies from liability for promoting third-party content for 27 years. The Supreme Court now hears Gonzalez V. Google which challenges the broad protections that have governed the internet. The case was brought before the court by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student in Paris who was killed in a 2015 terror attack. The Gonzalez family contends that Google's algorithms promoted extremist content that aided the terrorist organization. The Director of the Tech Policy Center at The Heritage Foundation, Kara Frederick joins to discuss the rise of online extremism, what social media companies can do to combat terrorist organizations from utilizing social media to promote their content, and why she believes the court is reluctant to roll back the protections afforded to tech companies by Section 230. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the past five years, the Washington Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings aimed at combating a fraught problem within the legal system — implicit racial bias. The court has relied on a new legal test: whether an “objective observer” could see racial bias as a factor in who gets to serve on juries, who gets convicted — and who wins in court.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith! They look at tragic traffic deaths in Seattle, track leg updates on free school meals and minimum wage for incarcerated workers, discuss the Washington Supreme Court's hearing on our capital gains tax, outline County Prosecutor Leesa Manion's changes to the office, update us on Seattle's social housing initiative, and react to candidates running for Seattle City Council.  Crystal and Rich start the show by covering this week's tragic traffic deaths, including the death of 23-year old grad student Jaahnavi Kandula, who was hit by a police vehicle. The number of these incidents is a horrific reminder that these fatalities aren't due to random chance, but are the result of numerous policy priorities and choices by elected officials and institutions.  Turning to the state legislature, our hosts give overviews on a bill to give free lunches to all public school students in Washington state and a bill that would provide minimum wage to incarcerated individuals for their labor. In state Supreme Court news, this week the court heard arguments for the suit over our state's capital gains tax that the legislature passed last year. We'll be keeping an eye out to see when we finally get a decision on this case.  King County's new Prosecuting Attorney, Leesa Manion, outlined her new approach to the office, including the creation of a gun violence prevention unit and a division focused on prosecuting gender-based violence. Rich also updates Crystal on the Stranger's Election Control Board's endorsement of Seattle's social housing initiative I-135, which will be on the ballot for the upcoming February 14th election. Finally, we end the show catching up on the newly announced candidates for this year's Seattle City Council elections, and ask why some candidates are announcing their campaigns without a clear vision of why they want the seat.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Rich Smith at @richsssmith.   Resources “Evaluating the Role of Incarceration in Public Safety with Criminologist Damon Petrich” - Hacks & Wonks    “Casual Friday with Crystal Fincher & Besa Gordon” by Patricia Murphy & Brandi Fullwood from KUOW    “Officer Responding to Overdose Call Killed Woman In Marked Intersection Where City Canceled Safety Project” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola    “Three pedestrians taken to hospital after collision in South Seattle” by Amanda Zhou from The Seattle Times    Follow Ryan Packer twitter: @typewriteralley   “Prevent traffic deaths with proven solutions for Seattle streets” by Gordon Padelford from The Seattle Times    “WA bill would make school meals free for all students” by Ruby de Luna from KUOW   “WA lawmakers consider minimum wage requirement for incarcerated workers” by Libby Denkman & Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Supreme Court Ruling Could Allow Washington to Tax the Rich” by Will Casey from The Stranger   “Public safety is focus of new prosecutorial units” by Christine Clarridge from Axios    “Vote Yes on Initiative 135” from The Stranger    “Who's running for Seattle City Council in 2023“ by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Formerly Unhoused, Andrew Ashiofu Wants to Fight for Housing Progress on City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Central District Resident Joy Hollingsworth Is Running for City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Urbanist Alex Hudson Enters Council Race to Replace Sawant” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “Assistant Attorney General Sarah Reyneveld Is Running for King County Council” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I am a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, we re-aired our conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich, who led the most comprehensive analysis of incarceration and crime data to-date, which found that incarceration doesn't reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Damon and I talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. Also today, I appeared on KUOW's Casual Friday podcast - we'll put a link to that in the show notes and on the website. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:01:30] Rich Smith: Thanks for having me again - so good to be back. [00:01:33] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. This is a week that was packed full of news. Starting off - some news that really sucked - really sad and tragic events happened this week when it came to pedestrians being hit by cars. One killed by an SPD officer driving a car on the way to a substance abuse call. And another - family, a parent and two kids, hit in a crosswalk. It has just been a horrible week. What happened and where do we stand on this? [00:02:15] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was on Monday - Fire was called to an OD [overdose] call, cops responded along with that. And a young woman, 23-year-old woman, named Jaahnavi was crossing the road - she's a grad student. And the cop hit her with her car. She died later of injuries later that evening. The cops slow rolled the information on this, at first saying that there had been a collision, putting the blame on the fire department. And then later on Tuesday, they finally confirmed that she died after being hit. And it's a tragedy, and it's one of those stories that show just how few choices we have - or how constrained our choices really are - by policy that we don't even see. We think we're out here making decisions - we think people are out here making decisions - but those decisions are circumscribed. And there are so many of those policies hidden in the background of this story. For instance, that intersection where she crossed was due for a while to get a revamp - a protected intersection - that would have prevented, or that may have prevented, this tragedy from occurring. We haven't seen the video - I don't know where she crossed in the crosswalk, I know she was in the crosswalk. But the design of this protected intersection may have prevented that from happening. The mayor took it out of his budget this year due to a giant $140 million hole that they had to work around and as a result of slowing real estate market, et cetera. The City Council didn't put that money back in and so - obviously, work wouldn't have started on that project before this incident happened - I don't want to get into butterfly effect stuff. But had we moved on that earlier, had we treated this Vision Zero - the city's plan to reduce all pedestrian deaths to zero - more seriously than we have been, if we'd been prioritizing that earlier, then tragedies like this could have been prevented. Also, there's the policy of having a police officer respond alongside a medic when they're doing an OD call. My understanding is that if the medic has to give the person who's suspected of having an OD Narcan, they want a cop there in case there's some kind of violent response to reversing the overdose with Narcan - and so they request this backup. The person who the medic checked on declined medical assistance at the time - it turns out it wasn't an emergency, but they were called. I'm not sure who called or why, but they were called because they thought someone was having an OD - and now it creates this emergency situation where if the cop threw on his lights, then they're racing to the scene. It's hard to really put the whole picture together because we haven't seen the video. We only know what the police are saying and what Fire is saying, but it does seem to be this confluence of questionable policy decisions that allowed for this tragedy to happen. [00:06:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And at least the information that we have now - as you said, the police have been slow to release information - but it appears that dispatch made the call to dispatch the police, that it wasn't actually requested by the fire department. But they were co-dispatched to the call along with Fire once they determined that was the case with the call, which is questionable - these are the things that we're talking about. So many times you talk about how all of these issues are related - how when we're talking about housing, we're talking about poverty. How we're talking about health, we're talking about equity - and so many of these failures came together. And just overall, even with the timing of this thing, this is a result of longstanding neglect. How long have we been talking about how unsafe this is? And this was just one pedestrian collision and injury this week. We also had a family mowed down in a crosswalk. [00:07:20] Rich Smith: Did you see that video? [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: I unfortunately did see that video. We have to do better. I think a lot of people are wondering - we hear lip service being given to this year, after year, after year. Certainly there have been some electeds who have tried to propose money and others - Tammy Morales comes to mind - but overall between the council and the mayor, we have not gotten this to be a priority. And we have to do something different, we have to do something substantial. If we had the amount of poisoning deaths by some source that we do with pedestrian deaths and collisions, we would be doing something about it. If there were a Brown person walking around and beating up people to this magnitude, we would be doing something different. This is a crisis. And just because it's happening to people outside of cars doesn't mean that we just give thoughts and prayers and don't do anything. And it's feeling like the situation where we all know we need to do more to stop gun violence, yet so much action isn't taken. There's an excellent article that was written last year, I think, by Gordon Padelford at The Urbanist, which kind of goes through - Hey, this is what percentage of pedestrian deaths are caused by this type of issue, this is the recommendation or the ask to solve it - this is what can happen. There's short term stuff, there's long term stuff. I just hope to see some action here. And it appears that there are some things that don't require the building of new infrastructure, but some signal timings - we need to look at how we allow drivers to turn both right on red and left turns - and we can be doing those in a safer way. And just all of that. I hope we get real serious about this across the region real quick. We just talked last week about the alarming skyrocketing pedestrian deaths and injuries across South King County. And I follow Ryan Packer on Twitter and their Patreon, and they cover the majority of these pedestrian-involved collisions. And just watching the amount of those come down the timeline is sobering. [00:09:45] Rich Smith: That's another sort of system - just people being in their cars and having car brain and forgetting - the great lie of the car is that you're not a 2-ton steel cage traveling down the road at 70 mph or 40 mph that could just absolutely wreck the fragile human body. For some, the car - you don't feel like that when you're in the car and that - so we got to kill the car in our head. [00:10:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the mind frame that comes with it - I drive, I have a car. I drive a lot less than I used to, but still drive. And I've had feelings before - of that feeling of inconvenience and wanting to get somewhere as fast as possible, but I really do think it takes a reframing to be like - Okay, I am in a 2-ton vehicle that can instantly kill or maim someone. It's okay if it takes me literally two minutes longer to get somewhere. When we talk about traffic calming, when we talk about signal timing, or not taking a right on red - yeah, it may delay you for 30 seconds - for 30 seconds, right? It may delay you for two minutes. But if the trade off of two minutes - that we can plan around, we can manage - is people not getting gruesomely killed, that's a trade off we can make. And we need to have more conversations that you don't just have free rein and cars aren't this - the ultimate priority above and beyond anything else. We have to also address - everything is culture now, but car culture - and how we teach people to drive, how we talk about driving, how we design around that. Until we reframe that it's okay if cars stop every now and then or go slow every now and then, we're going to continue to see this kind of stuff. [00:11:42] Rich Smith: Absolutely. And when I drive, I feel myself like I just turn - I'm like, when I'm a pedestrian, I'm like, are you kidding me? It's the - the roads are ours, I'm fragile, I could be destroyed by your machines. Stop, slow down - in the crosswalk, you monsters. But then when I'm in a car, I'm like - all of these pedestrians don't care about their lives at all. They're walking into the middle of the road. They're dressed the exact same color of the night. They need to get out of my way - blah, blah, blah. So I have to consciously remind myself - I'm in a climate-controlled environment. I'm listening to the music that I want to listen to, or the radio that I want to listen to, or the podcast I want to listen to - like Hacks & Wonks. And if I need to pause - to pay more careful attention to my surroundings - then I'm the one who should because I'm the one who's basically a weapon right now. It just, yeah - and it's - you'll get there, it's not going to take - even if you're 30 seconds later, two minutes late, you'll get there. People will welcome you - so just chill out, cars. [00:12:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. This week - more action in our legislative session that we have this week - there were two bills in particular that caught my eye. One to make all school lunches in Washington free, which I think is an excellent idea. And another to require that incarcerated workers at least make minimum wage, because right now they don't and it's basically slavery. What's your take on these bills? [00:13:24] Rich Smith: Yeah, it's weird to make anybody - they're kind of related - but it's weird to make children go to a place for - whatever, 7-8 hours, and then make them buy their food there if they want to not operate at a caloric deficit. And poverty is high. Child poverty is shockingly high. And it just shouldn't be an expense. As somebody who went to school and - I could have made my lunch before I went, but I always just tried to bum money from other people so that I could have the pizza or whatever at school. So I don't know, it was always embarrassing to bring lunch. And so I just always wanted to have the school lunch. I remember being - as a kid, school lunch was somehow prestige - even though in popular culture, school lunch is stereotypically lunch lady giving you neon food or whatever. In any event, it's just - I really would have benefited from this bill. I wouldn't have had to convince so many of my fellow students to give me dimes and quarters so that I could get bad pizza or whatever. But yeah, philosophically, kids shouldn't have to pay for food. Poor families shouldn't have to be scrounging up a couple of bucks just so that they can eat. And similarly, if we are forcibly incarcerating people and they are working, they should make the minimum wage and not, as Representative Tarra Simmons - who brought this bill to the Legislature - testifies, 42 cents an hour because of how much the jail can just dock from your pay for medicine, for this, for that, for this financial obligation, for this financial obligation. Basically, you're paying to incarcerate yourself. You're paying the state to make you less free, to take away your freedom. And you are effectively a slave. It's unconscionable. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: It is unconscionable. And when this is an exception in the constitutional amendment banning slavery - means it's literally slavery. These people are working and doing the same kind of work that everyone else is. Just because they're incarcerated does not mean that their labor has no value. And there is such a problem with making elements of our criminal legal system profitable for people - we have seen how corrupting and how corrosive that is. We should not be incentivizing people to lock people up and keep them locked up. We just re-aired our midweek show about how problematic carceral solutions are, and it just makes no sense. And also we spend so much time and energy, so much administrative resources on managing who gets lunch, who doesn't get lunch - just tracking and doing the - tracking who does qualify for free lunch, and who doesn't, and who's behind, and how to collect it. That all takes money too. We're requiring them to be there, just as you said. And the consequences - say a family is having trouble affording food, so their kid needs to be shamed and humiliated and can't eat or get something - how does that make any kind of sense? And also, we just got so much data from the unfortunately brief free school lunches that we provided nationwide and what kind of an impact that had on child poverty, on child hunger - was absolutely a positive and way more transformative than most people even anticipated. Really, why are we not doing this? It seems cruel not to. So I'm very excited to see both of those making their way through the Legislature. Also big news this week - on the wealth tax issue - the Supreme Court heard the capital gains tax case. How is that playing out? Where do we stand with that? [00:17:45] Rich Smith: Well, we'll see. They just heard - that is, the Supreme Court just heard - oral arguments on the case yesterday. It's difficult, really, to follow the arguments because Justice Steven González is so fine that I have trouble paying attention to what the lawyers are arguing about, the difference between the excise tax and income tax, etc. I'm joking - he's a good-looking man, but he didn't actually talk that much during the oral arguments. But he did ask a kind of prescient question, or a useful question, that was interesting to me. This is all to say that - yeah, we'll see - they presented their arguments yesterday. Backing up a second, the State Legislature - after a decade of arm twisting and back bending and watering down bill after bill after bill - finally decided to pass a capital gains tax on the richest 8,000 Washingtonians. That is a 7% tax whenever you realize capital gains, which is a financial asset over - $250 million is the threshold of the tax. If you cash out stocks for more than $250 million, then you're going to get hit with a 7% tax. A bunch of conservatives sued and said this isn't a excise tax or a sales tax - a transactional tax as the state is arguing - this is an income tax because that property, or that $250 million is property. According to the State of Washington's Constitution, that's income. State's taxing that money at 7%. Constitution says you can only tax property at 1%, so it's unconstitutional. Also, the fact that there's an exemption means it's not taxed uniformly, so that's unconstitutional. They also argue that it's a violation of - they have some kind of commerce clause argument that I didn't understand and that didn't seem to apply. It didn't seem particularly sophisticated - the justices didn't seem particularly bothered by it during oral arguments yesterday, but that's basically the gist. And it's up to these political figures - these justices after hearing the arguments - to determine whether or not we're going to allow the state to raise $500 million to pay for education. The state hoped that they're - or asked the court to give a decision before April 18th on the matter, so that the lawmakers who are busy writing the state budget can know if they can include this $500 million that we raised from the capital gains tax in their bottom lines or not. The Supreme Court didn't seem bothered by that, didn't seem like they were moved by that request and will release a decision on their own time - a little sort of cross-branch flexing back and forth there during the oral arguments. But we know that on some Thursday, sometime in the next few months, we'll get an answer to whether or not we can tax them. And there's also the possibility that the court could, in their decision, say - Actually, income tax - or income isn't property. Those court rulings that determine that, the court decisions that determined that in the '30s were wrong. And that would allow Washington State to pass income taxes for the first time in over 100 years, which would really give us the opportunity to rebalance the tax code that is right now balanced on the backs of the poor. Every recession we dig ourselves out of - we do it from sales tax, property taxes, taxes on gross receipts of small businesses and other businesses - and large businesses, frankly. And that's the most regressive way to do it. And we're the most regressive state - in terms of taxes - in the country. So there's a slim possibility that we could change the whole game, but I don't know if they'll do that. They don't seem hungry to do that. [00:22:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And Will Casey had a great breakdown of this all in The Stranger, in a piece that we'll link in the show notes and in our social media threads on this show. But to your point, they can - they do actually have a few different choices. This isn't necessarily just a binary - it's allowed or not allowed. They could agree with the lower court that it's not allowed. They could also agree with the Attorney General's opinion, which doesn't take any view on overturning the prior case that said income is property, we can't have an income tax, and just say it's an excise tax. It doesn't even get into the other discussion. And then that third option, as you articulated, can have them overturn the ruling that made an income tax illegal. One of the most foremost Washington State constitutional scholars and professors that we have in the state - Hugh Spitzer and some others - thought that that isn't likely - just overturning the whole thing and finding that income tax is legal to do in the state is unlikely. That if something does happen, they predict it would be agreeing that it's an excise tax. But who knows? They can do anything. We will see what happens. [00:24:01] Rich Smith: Sorry, just one correction. We can have an income tax, but it just has to be uniform and it can't be more than 1% because that's - yeah. But yeah, just to clarify - we all know, and I know - I said it too. But it's just - it's like a shorthand - it's we can't do an income tax that makes sense - is what we mean when we say we can't do an income tax. [00:24:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. A graduated income tax. Thank you for that clarification. [00:24:21] Rich Smith: Yeah. Yeah, but I agree that - listening to oral arguments in any case, and especially in a case like this, just makes me go crazy because the arguments are never about the moral value of the question at hand. The judges aren't deciding whether or not it's - we should have a capital gains tax if the Legislature does it. It's based on previous case law triangulated over the course of many different years - is it technical - are these definitions, does this definition of capital gains and income and property align with the plain language of this law or not, and to what degree do we care that it does? It seems like it's all up to us to decide, right? You've got Noah Purcell, the Assistant Attorney General, arguing on behalf of the state saying stuff like, This is an excise tax because when we're taxing the capital gain, we're taxing it at the point of the transaction - not taxing the actual - we're taxing the transaction, not the money, but the ability to do the transaction, not the money that you get coming in. And the other side says like, In all 50 states, or in every other state in the country, they have capital gains taxes - but those taxes are called income taxes. And yet here we have a capital gains tax and suddenly it's not an income tax? And then the state says, Well, we're the only state in the country that defines income as property, right? So it just dwindled - the entire argument dwindles into definitions and it just makes you feel insane while you're watching it, because it has nothing to do with this. It has little to do with the substance of the policy matter. So we just make it up anyway and decide - the entire law is based on language, which is quicksand, it's soup, it changes constantly. The definitions are made from language and so their meanings change over time, and yet we've got these clerics in robes pretending like they're mystical beings seeing the true intent of the law or whatever and just argue. It's just, it's witchery. But anyway, I just really - if you want to feel that, if you want to feel insane, I recommend going to TVW and watching the oral arguments. [00:26:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will stay tuned to what happens and await the upcoming some Thursday where we eventually hear what the fate of the capital gains tax is. Also this week, we heard from our new King County Prosecutor, Leesa Manion, about some of her plans for the office - the establishment of some new units focusing on gun violence, sexual assault, economic crimes, and others. How did you view this? [00:27:27] Rich Smith: Rearranging the office chairs? I don't know, right? Creating these units and - on the one hand, making it someone's job to focus on certain crimes does matter, right? It changes the focus and the thrust of the work that gets done on a daily basis. But I don't know to what degree that's going to fix the problems in the office. You're not really dealing with - it's not like we're still concentrating on "repeat property crime" which seems to be, what, a euphemism for graffiti, which is one of the - or, broken windows - which is one of City Attorney Ann Davison's big areas of focus as well as the mayor's office. But I don't - I'm not quite sure, really, how this rearrangement will impact the scope and work of the office. They don't expect it to help knock down the 4,000-case backlog that developed over the course of the pandemic. They're not really - there's some stuff to like in there in terms of focusing on diversion, which would be better than if we had Jim Ferrell in there, who was the hard right - or a conservative Democrat, I should say - running against her in the November elections last year, but I'm not sure. What's your take on it? [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: You know, I am reserving judgment. I'm willing to see how this turns out. It does actually matter - to create units where people are focusing, where they're able to share resources to investigate and - within our current system of both policing and among the prosecutor - investigation is an important thing. That's the meat of how we figure out who does stuff and especially if we want to stop playing whac-a-mole with people doing low-level crimes that are often the result of some other root cause. The ability to move further up the chain and address some of those systemic issues, or if they are actually targeting organized retail theft or domestic violence, intimate partner abuse - to really go after people who are doing that, or who are defrauding seniors, and going after wage theft - that requires focus and investigation and specialized resources and they're not going to get pulled away on to whatever the newfangled thing is that they're focusing on that week. And that's shown to have an impact and make a difference. I also recognize that this is one piece in the criminal legal system puzzle. And on that investigation issue, we still have issues with police who are doing the frontline work in this and not investigating many things. And having those who were in investigative roles moved out to patrol - because of their conversations on staffing and feeling that they need to do that. And then we wind up in situations where we aren't investigating sexual assault. And even when there's gun violence and a business owner has a bullet that they collected that went through their window, the police aren't showing up for days or weeks to pick that up and even process that. So it's like what can the prosecutor do if police are only focused on patrol, surveillance, low-level crime and not able to put the resources into investigation in order to address these issues. So it feels like everything's a mess systemically and they're trying to wade through that. But I do think that - we know that certain interventions with gun violence, we know that certain types of diversion, we know that focusing on crimes of abuse and manipulation and fraud make a difference. I was excited to actually see named - wage theft - which is one of the biggest crimes being perpetrated in the City, that so often doesn't get talked about because it is perpetrated by more wealthy people, business owners. But that also comes with a pause, because in the quote that I saw in the paper, it talked about, Hey, we - last year, we filed more charges against organized retail theft than any others before. The Stranger had done excellent reporting on what they call organized retail theft - sure does look the same as small-time petty theft. And so if we're laying out this big - saying we're focusing on wage theft and economic crimes and fraud and organized retail theft - but every focus, all the resources, and all of the energy is going towards this "organized retail theft" that looks like the same old theft that we've been dealing with that is not very organized. We'll have to see how this turns out. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt, see what happens, see what kind of an impact can be made, but I'm definitely waiting to see what the impact is. [00:33:23] Rich Smith: Yeah, could just - want to triple underline that. The categories look okay to me. It'll be, it'll just be telling to see where they put, or the prosecutors put, their emphasis. [00:33:34] Crystal Fincher: Okay. With that, also wanted to talk about Initiative 135 on the docket. There is an election coming up on Valentine's Day, February 14th, to decide whether Seattle is going to have social housing and The Stranger took a stance on it. What did you guys decide? [00:33:56] Rich Smith: The Stranger Election Control Board is Pro - we want you to vote Yes on Initiative 135 for social housing. It's not perfect, but it is good. And so it's worth, it's worth your time. It's worth your Yes vote. Certainly. [00:34:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely is. I was in a conversation yesterday - with Axios actually - and talking about what the prospects of this look like. But I also think this is an interesting time - with all of these tech layoffs that we're experiencing and talk of an economic recession, there've been some people who have been fortunate enough to be insulated from the worry and concern about being priced out of Seattle and feeling secure with income. And there are lots of conversations about the working class and whether different workers, or a different class of worker, not feeling the same kind of solidarity or vulnerability to some of the challenges that other people have been facing when it comes to trying to fight for their rights, for unionization, for recognizing that they could be a paycheck or two away from financial instability, poverty or homelessness. And there are a lot of new people contending with some of that insecurity. This is unfortunate wherever and however it happens - absolutely not rooting for anyone to lose their job - there's a lot of pain and struggle and uncertainty going on now. But I do think this is all part of this same conversation and crisis that we're facing - we have a whole new class of people wondering if they can afford to remain in Seattle. If they are upside down on their mortgages with the way things are right now, if they can afford rent - continue to afford rent if they lose their job and don't get another one very frequently - how we're going to weather this predicted recession that's coming. So it really does seem like the time for varied action, new action, different action, not letting perfect get in the way of the good, and do something here. And this seems like it has a track record elsewhere. The reasoning behind it is sound. And let's kick this off. And let's see if we can get this right. And if it needs fine tuning as we go along, let's do that. But it really seems like the time for some different decisive action is now. [00:36:39] Rich Smith: Yeah, one of the members in the SECB highlighted this initiative as optimistic. And it's something you can rally behind, it's something you can really organize around - not just to get it passed, but once it's implemented, and once they start going through the steps of actually creating the social housing - it is a site for organizing, a site for movement building. And that's just - there's so few exciting, actual things like that - having a public developer, which this initiative would create, to acquire and build housing for people between 0% and 120% of the area median income that the City would own and make affordable - that is lower than 30% of your income, if you're living in those buildings - forever, it's just exciting. And yeah, it's forward thinking. And as we argue in the endorsement, we suck at thinking for the future - Seattle does a horrible job of thinking ahead. And I think it's because a lot of people who are here don't want to. They have - a lot of people have their house, who have their little nautical village, like being in the corner of the country, have this identity of being away from it all and that's why we're out here in the first place - and just emotionally blocked out the 2010s, where people flooded into the city, into the area - because of how prosperous all the companies were, because of all these opportunities. And then just did nothing to build the infrastructure for it. And this has been a curse of this town going back decades. 1970 - we didn't get the trades, and so the trades went to Atlanta. In 1990, or '95, we settled for a much smaller light rail extension that we possibly could. We have made the mistake of not making room for people who want to move to this beautiful place time and time again. And it is the root cause of so much of the pain and struggle that we see outside. And this initiative comes along and says, Okay, let's have a 50-year plan. And let's start now. Let's add another tool to the housing toolbox that can - if we plant this seed, grow into thousands and thousands of affordable units built sustainably, with union labor, that can keep housing - a certain amount of housing stock - affordable forever. Not like affordable housing - government-subsidized housing - which can go back on the unaffordable market in 30 years most of the time. And not like the market rate housing, which nobody's been able to afford for as long as I've been alive. But permanently affordable housing. And, yeah, as we mentioned, and as the advocates for this initiative will mention, it's working in France, it's working in Vienna, Austria, it's working in Singapore, it's working all around the globe. And it can work here - granted, very different housing markets, very different tax structures - in those places. But we can do it here, and we should. Because as Representative Frank Chopp of all people, who has dedicated his public life to building affordable housing, said about the affordable housing system we have now - it doesn't work. We need to try something else. And this is that something else. So it's exciting, and people should vote for it. [00:40:36] Crystal Fincher: Also coming on a later ballot to you - in August, in the primary - will be a number of councilmembers vying for several open seats. We had several announcements so far, some new ones this week. Who's running for City Council? Who's not running for City Council? And what does it mean? [00:40:57] Rich Smith: Everybody is running for City Council, it seems like. Well, last week - was it? Kshama Sawant, who represents District 3, the central area of the City, announced her plans to leave. And this sort of spurred some people to announce, though others had done it around that time or a little before that time. But it's really motivating people to jump in. And so yeah, we've had a number of people jump in in that race, in that City Council race. Joy Hollingsworth - runs Hollingsworth Cannabis, Central District resident, comes from a lineage of civil rights organizers - and she's in, she announced on MLK Day. We've got Alex Hudson - just announced this week - who was the Executive Director of Transportation Choices and runs the neighborhood board over at First Hill. Andrew Ashiofu, the Co-Chair of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission, jumped in to the race. Hannah has got great profiles on all of these people - you should check them out at The Stranger. And just this morning, Sarah Reyneveld, who is a Assistant Attorney General - she's jumping into the King County race to replace Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who was on the King County Council in District 4, representing Ballard, Queen Anne, Belltown, South Lake Union, that kind of area, on the County Council. She was in that seat for two terms. So Reyneveld is trying to swoop in and keep her legacy going there. And yeah, we've got another ex-Amazon worker, who was legally fired, is jumping into the race to replace Lisa Herbold. She was not one of the ones reportedly recruited by Bruce Harrell - still waiting for that person, whoever he is, to jump in at some point. So yeah, a flurry of activity and many more to come, I'm sure, as the balance of the City Council is up for grabs this year. [00:43:21] Crystal Fincher: This is going to be interesting with so many open seats - Lisa Herbold, Kshama Sawant, Alex Pedersen are not running again. We're going to see a lot of turnover, the potential for a switch in the balance of power with the council. And as you said, there are great profiles in The Stranger about some of these candidates. I think Capitol Hill Seattle and The Urbanist also had a couple of profiles. We will continue to see what they say, but I will say - one, it's early. It's early - running for office is hard and people are starting to get this together. But I do hope to see overall a greater articulation of vision. And hearing what they actually want to do, what they want to accomplish for the City and for the residents of Seattle. I was struck - in a few different situations where - being asked about issues, policy, where do you stand on this, do you support social housing, do you support this or that? And - Well, I'm not sure. I'm interested in hearing more about it. I want to hear what the community has to say. I'm looking forward to bringing people together to discuss it. I support this, but don't know if I can commit to it before I hear more information. And this is a time where you are running and making the case that you are the person most qualified to make this change. And to bring about the change that a lot of people are frustrated that they haven't been seeing after hearing promises for so long. And so it really seems like a missed opportunity to not at least take a stand on some things, let people know where you're at - and that may be a differentiator for people in crowded primaries. If someone is willing to stand up with certainty on issues and others aren't, that's absolutely a differentiator. And this is across a variety of issues, a variety of candidates. This is not about one candidate - have seen this widespread. So I do hope we see a greater articulation and greater commitments on what they're going to be, because I do worry about people who are afraid of offending people this early in the game. Campaigns are hard - don't get me wrong - but they don't compare to governing and the type of pressure and accountability that's there. And so if you cannot commit here, what are we going to get when you're on the council? [00:46:02] Rich Smith: I'm trying to hold it in, Crystal - but yeah, I couldn't agree more. Why are you running for office? You decided to announce - you could control that decision. If you don't have definitive answers for where you're at on problems that have existed for years in this city, if you still need to learn more from the community, hear more from the community on hiking the JumpStart Tax to fill budget gaps, or where you're at on pedestrian improvements, or where you're at on this or that - then why did you decide to run? All you're telling me whenever you say that - when you say, I need to listen to the community more on this issue - is that you are running as a matter of course, because you want the power of the position, not that you have something that you want to do with that power. And saying, Ah, but how I will wield my power is to be a collaborator, or to listen, to bring the community together, bring everyone around the table - then you are saying that - that you suck. I don't know how to say it - that you're going to defer to whoever's interests seem to have the most sway over - I don't know. You don't have principles in that moment, right? You're just a funnel for other people to use. And as we've seen in the past, that means you're going to bend to big business, you're not going to stand up for stuff that you know is right. And that's, or at least that's what that signals, and it just boggles the mind. And then this little ouroboros of the community asked me to run - Okay, great. What are you going to do? I'm going to listen to community. Well, what did the community - why do they want you to run? Presumably they want you to run because they already agreed with you on stuff. And so just - trust your instincts, say what's right - and people will respond. I don't know why everyone's trying to not offend X. I know why - because they don't want to offend the money - because they need the money, and they need the endorsements, and they need the support in order to win. And so whatever - people aren't going to say what they actually believe. It's either that, or they actually don't believe anything and there's just a transparent grab for power on assumption that you've been working toward this, and so it is yours. It's disgusting to see, frankly. And I don't know - maybe I'm just getting over this, but I'm - it's, it's, I find - it sucks. It's offensive. [00:48:47] Crystal Fincher: I'm gonna choose to try and have a charitable interpretation of where they may be. It is early in the campaign. Maybe they haven't figured out the best way to articulate where they stand yet. But I do think they need to hurry up and get to it. Anyone - you don't have to be elected to bring people together and listen to community. The reason why you run for office is to have the power to make decisions. It's to make those decisions. We give you that authority through an election. And so we need to hear about what decisions you plan on making. We need to hear about the policy that you plan on crafting and passing in specificity. That is why you run. We are not trying to elect a convener here. We're not trying to elect a moderator for the community, someone to conduct listening sessions. We can do that any day of the week. We can pay other people for that. But only a few people can sit and make those decisions. And so hearing about those is really important. And to your point, Rich, we have heard that from people who have done nothing, from people who have gone back on their promises that they made while they were running, from people who did say - I'm different, money has no hold on me. But lo and behold, they wind up doing different things than they said when they were running. And it's exactly what their list of top donors wants. That's what we're used to seeing when we hear this. And so a red flag automatically pops up. Maybe that's not ultimately where these people are going to be coming from, maybe that's not their intent, maybe they're still working on that - I would encourage them to work on it quickly. [00:50:34] Rich Smith: Yeah. I agree. And that's - thinking of Sawant - that's part of what made her refreshing was - she was just like, she just tried to do what aligned with her principles. She had no power, so she ended up spending a lot of time just like dunking on her colleagues a lot in ways that were not particularly productive or whatever. But she was like, Okay, we want to protect abortion in Seattle. Let's pay for it all. Let's pay for all abortions. Here's a plan to pay for everybody's abortions every year. It costs $3.5 million. Sign it up. Oh, we got a $140 million budget hole. Let's raise the JumpStart Tax to fill it. Sure, we're going to have to fill it with something else in the meantime and then backfill with JumpStart, but let's do that. And so it's not hard to have a policy position and to try to do what you, try to hold onto that principle when you finally make it into office. And so I just wish people wouldn't hedge. And if you say something and then you change your mind later, you can just - you just do that. You could say I changed my mind for this reason or that reason. And then you won't have the - oh, broken promise mailer, or whatever that you're scared of. People just don't know how to be people on the campaign, and it's incredibly depressing. And it just takes so much time to parse. And I amplify your call and your hope that people will get better quickly on these issues. [00:52:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think it's going to be a competitive advantage for those - who do still have to hit all your campaign marks, do the things that get votes and connect with people. But the way to connect with people is to tell them concretely how you plan to improve their day-to-day life. And with that, we will wrap up today's Hacks & Wonks. Thank you so much for listening on this Friday, January 27th, 2023. I cannot believe the month of January just evaporated like that. How dare it. But we're almost to Black History Month. Anyway, Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [00:53:31] Rich Smith: Thanks - bye.

The debate over whether wealthy people in Washington State should pay a capital gains tax has reached the Washington Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in Quinn v. Washington on Thursday.

In 2019, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that state legislators are subject to the state's public disclosure law. In the last year, however, many public records requests of this nature have been denied, with records officers citing something journalists haven't heard of before: “legislative privilege.”

On this Hacks & Wonks Week in Review, political consultant and show host Crystal Fincher is joined by fellow political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner, for an enthusiastic conversation looking ahead to the 2023 Washington state legislative session, reviewing key announcements from a party leader and a city councilmember who aren't running again, and discussing what makes for effective political mail.  Crystal and Heather start the show looking at what's coming in the 2023 state legislative session. They highlight housing, drug possession laws, childcare, and education as key areas that our representatives will be working on in Olympia, and point out the mandate voters gave our leaders by electing for fighting for progressive reforms last November.  This week, state Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski announced she will not be running for state chair again. Crystal and Heather review Podlodowski's accomplishments as chair and compare her tenure to other state parties like New York. In more local news, Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen announced he will also not be running for re-election this year, meaning that now three city council seats will not have an incumbent in their race.  After a brief discussion about Seattle's I-135 Social Housing initiative, which will be decided on a February 14th ballot, Crystal and Heather have an in-depth conversation about what makes for effective political mail. It's an informative discussion from two highly-accomplished experts in the field that you won't want to miss!  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Heather Weiner at @hlweiner.   Heather Weiner Heather Weiner (she/her) is a political consultant with 30 years of experience on labor, environmental, LGBTQ, racial justice, and reproductive rights issues. She focuses on ballot initiatives, independent expenditures, legislative, union organizing and contract campaigns. She's a recovering lawyer.   Resources   Hacks & Wonks twitter - 2022 Stats    “Inslee Rolls Out ‘Substantial and Audacious' Housing Agenda in Budget Proposal” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   “Voters sent clear message to WA leaders for 2023 Legislative session” by Andy Billig from The Seattle Times   “In 2023, WA lawmakers will decide the legal future of drug possession” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut    “Missing Middle Housing Reform Returns for 2023 Legislative Session” by Doug Trumm, Stephen Fesler, & Natalie Bicknell Argerious from The Urbanist   “What WA voters want to see from the 2023 legislative session” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “WA Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski stepping down” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Alex Pedersen Not Seeking Second Term on Seattle Council” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “WA Supreme Court clears way for state to collect capital-gains tax” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   House Our Neighbors website - I-135 Overview and Text   “Catch Up on Seattle's Social Housing Ballot Measure at Our January Meetup with Tiffani McCoy” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, we had an enlightening discussion with Senator Manka Dhingra, Chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee in our State Legislature and our State Senate, where we talked about the tough issues of her committee, the tough issues her committee will take on this legislative session. Find it in the resources below or on our website, officialhacksandwonks.com. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available on our website and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. [00:01:15] Heather Weiner: Good morning, afternoon, whatever day it is for your listeners - time of day - Crystal Fincher. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: Hey, hey, hey. [00:01:22] Heather Weiner: So happy to be invited back. I really thought for a moment there that I had just completely bungled it and would never be invited back. So can't tell you how excited I am to be here in 2023. [00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: Now hush about you bungling stuff. You remain one of the most admired and in-demand political consultants - and wonderful mentors and friends to so many of us. [00:01:49] Heather Weiner: Oh, I love this part of every podcast, whether it's this one or anybody else's, where people just give each other big air kisses. So big air kiss to you, Crystal Fincher. [00:01:58] Crystal Fincher: Big air kiss to you. I love it, and I love that - yeah, we get to talk to great, awesome, incredible dynamic people and learn from your wisdom. And just get a chance to say Hi, because we get so busy sometimes that it becomes hard. So I - we're listening to each other's voices. But while we record, I can see your face - this gives me an excuse to see your face. [00:02:27] Heather Weiner: Well, good morning. Listen, I am so excited about today's conversation because - as you know - it is not quite Christmas Eve for all of us hacks and wonks. But it's pretty exciting - I would say maybe more like right before 4th of July - because the fireworks are going to start exploding on Monday when leg session comes in - in Olympia - and we're already seeing pre-filed bills, people are already starting to stake out their positions. [00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: They are. [00:02:54] Heather Weiner: Yeah, it's going to be very interesting - with the Democrats coming in just fired up to get some stuff done. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: Love it. Legislative Session Eve basically. Before we even get to that, I did just want to take a moment. We, the team here - Bryce Cannatelli, Shannon Cheng, and I - looked back at our 2022. And usually we don't do this publicly, but we thought - we actually did a lot of work this past year and we just did a little 2022 In Review. We actually did 97 total episodes in 2022, which is a lot - 71 total guests, 25 interviews with elected officials, 4 candidate forums. We did a lot of work, a lot of shows. And the podcast overall - I was just saying yesterday - it, for being just this completely niche, really wonky local government politics and policy podcast, which - I was like, Okay, maybe seven people will listen to when we started out, but I just think it's really important to talk about these issues. It's become bigger than I ever thought it would. And I just really appreciate all of the listeners and people who engage. We are really passionate about just engaging in our community, including our local government. This is how we shape who we are and tomorrow - I've said before - getting involved in local government is organizing. [00:04:33] Heather Weiner: And it's, and it's fun. [00:04:35] Crystal Fincher: It really is. And you can make a difference, you can change things - you have so much impact locally. And so I hope, as we talk about this, people see that and feel that - and get activated and involved. But anyway, just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to everyone. We do this podcast in the middle of all of the rest of our work - this is a side project and not what we do actually full-time - we're political consultants. And squeezing this in between everything is a lot of work - it takes a lot of time - but we feel it's important, and we enjoy it, and we enjoy interacting and speaking with all of you. So thank you once again. And on to a legislative preview. What can we look forward to this legislative session, Heather? [00:05:33] Heather Weiner: First, let's just say that the Democrats are coming in and saying that they are being given a mandate by the voters. I don't know if you read Andy Billig's op-ed in The Seattle Times where he laid out, Hey, we won big this year and we have a mandate to address racial equity, to address homelessness, housing, tax fairness, the environment - and we're ready to do it. To which Danny Westneat, ever playing the devil's advocate and a grumpy old man like Walter Matthau, suddenly wants to say - No, you didn't really get a mandate. You just lucked out because of Dobbs and Roe V. Wade. I think Danny is reading the room wrong. I think Andy Billig totally has it. The voters want more progressive policies, they want to see Washington become a better state to live in, and they want the super rich to pay for it. And I'm very excited to see what this legislative session comes up with. Top of the agenda, of course, is from Governor Inslee's budget, which he announced right at the end of the month in December - where he dropped a bombshell saying he wants to run a statewide referendum that raises money for housing. And I think that's an amazing, fantastic idea - and we're hearing a lot of support from Republicans actually - even Braun is out there talking about middle-income housing, which is fantastic. We need to make sure that we don't lose sight of what the real - the other big crisis that is in front of us every day, which is the lack of low-income housing. I'm really hoping that the Legislature is going to take that by the horns and run it through this year. What else are you seeing, Crystal? [00:07:19] Crystal Fincher: I am definitely seeing that. I think, in housing, it is really interesting to see the increase in momentum, support - even just from last legislative session - for taking action on middle housing, or the ability to build in more places to increase the housing supply in the longterm. Also remains to be seen if there is enough momentum to, as you just mentioned, address lower-income folks and their ability to afford housing, keeping people in their homes, renter protections, those types of things. We will see how that lands in this Legislature. I think - seeing momentum on some public health issues - they're going to have to address the Blake fix, or the legislation that was brought about from the Blake decision from our State Supreme Court addressing personal possession of drugs and substances. And in addressing that, they're going to be forced to take that on this session. And we actually had a great conversation with Senator Manka Dhingra in our midweek episode about that. I think one thing that people are wondering about is just in the issue of education - we saw so many strikes by public educators really standing up for their kids and especially bringing attention to how short-staffed and underfunded our special education system and resources are - [00:08:56] Heather Weiner: And childcare. [00:08:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And although there was some improvement made on that in the short term - really what was made plain - is that there needs to be some statewide fixes. We have to more fundamentally address education. And I don't know if that's going to be addressed this session, but I think that's another area where voters spoke loudly and clearly - from people who were really articulating the importance of that as candidates and also that we just saw in the support of teachers. It's always interesting when those strikes happen and people are trying to figure out - okay, is there going to be pushback against the strikes? Is there going to be support? And in district after district - doesn't, didn't matter whether it was in a metropolitan area, suburban, rural - those teachers had the support of the families and the parents in their district and a recognition that we have to do better. So I do hope that we see action taken on that. And I think they can expect to face questions if that doesn't look like that happens. [00:10:05] Heather Weiner: So let me pivot on that one and say - earlier this year, we heard from a lot of school districts that said they might have to do more levies in order to fund their needs - whether that's basic construction, repairing these aging schools, funding special ed programs, funding general programs. And what happens is when they pass a levy, that's through a property tax and that property tax means that the lowest income people are the ones who end up paying the greatest percentage of that. So I am very excited to see in the Governor's budget that he is already taking into account the capital gains tax, which is going to the Washington Supreme Court for a hearing on the 26th of this month. He's already assumed that will be upheld as constitutional and has incorporated that money into education, particularly preschool help for low-income families and expanding childcare opportunities for all families. I'm very happy to see that - I think that's pretty exciting. But did you read this Elway poll that Crosscut did? Yeah - talking, asking voters what their highest priority issues were. I thought that was also super interesting because I find the Elway polls skew pretty conservative - and sometimes they're worded a little conservative for me, sometimes I don't really buy them - but I actually got polled on this, so I was very excited to see where I was. And more than a majority of the voters do support the Governor's proposal - raise a $4 million bond for homelessness and housing. They support more funding for education. They want the Democrats to move forward on these progressive policies. I think the Republicans are going to be smart this year. I don't think they're going to pick fights on the dumb issues for them - I don't think they're going to pick fights on choice, I don't think they're going to pick fights on LGBTQ issues. I think they're going to pick a fight on taxes and I think they're going to pick a fight on decriminalization. I think that's where they think they can start to wedge people and start to pull some of the moderate conservative Democrats with them. What do you think? [00:12:10] Crystal Fincher: You know, that's such an interesting issue. Speaking of public polling, every time this is polled - and it has been several times - the public is ahead of where our legislature is and the public is clear about - on issues of legalization, that they want a public health approach. We can look around and see that the War on Drugs has failed, right? We've been trying this for 40, 50 years and has not worked, even though that it's taken a ton of resources. And so they do want a different approach and to stop doing the things that haven't worked. And so it's really interesting because the public is there. And when it's put in front of the public, they vote in that direction. But some of our legislators are behind where the public is, and we hear concerns from them that frankly we don't see. Even in King County, when vote after vote, we see people and candidates who have articulated a more evidence-based approach to these things - that takes into account where criminalization is counterproductive, and doesn't make people safer, and doesn't get us closer to where we need to be as a society. [00:13:30] Heather Weiner: And is a waste of taxpayer dollars, honestly, right - incarceration. [00:13:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is really inefficient and expensive. And so that's going to be interesting - to see if people follow where evidence is and it's very clear, or if they don't - I don't know where the Legislature is going to land on that. [00:13:49] Heather Weiner: I feel like it has less to do with facts and it has more to do - I know this is going to shock you and all of your listeners - that politics and policy may not have anything to do with facts, and may have more to do with personal experience. And I think there are many legislators and many of us who have people in our lives who we love and care about who struggle with substance use disorder. And I think that those stories of people who we love and care about because - who are struggling with substance use disorder and face incarceration if they ask for help and so they refuse, they cannot ask for help because they are afraid of incarceration. I think that if some of those stories can come out, that if legislators have courage to share their personal stories with permission of the people involved, of course, I think that will be almost as persuasive - if not more persuasive - than the facts. Because it is the dehumanization of people who suffer from substance use disorder, which is a public health issue - it is a mental and public health issue - that people who suffer from that are demonized and dehumanized. And while we continue to allow that to happen, I don't think we're going to get very far. So let's use those personal stories. Let's have the courage to come out with our own personal stories about substance use disorder - for me, it's a lot of red wine - to get people to talk about it and take away the stigma and get some solutions on the table. [00:15:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So it's going to be interesting to see. There certainly will be a lot that unfolds during the session and we will continue to pay attention to what happens, but certainly it's going to be, it's going to be an interesting session and I think beyond everything, you're absolutely right. There is a mandate to act and people are expecting action. Another piece of big news this week - seeing a series of big news where people announcing that they are not running for the seats that they hold. And I guess starting off is one that's not technically a public official, but is very visible in politics and policy in Washington - Tina Podlodowski, the State Chair of the Washington State Democrats, announced that she is stepping down from her position. What did you think about this? [00:16:07] Heather Weiner: Well, first - I am a big fan of Tina Podlodowski's. I think she has done an absolutely amazing job as Chair. She's raised more money. She has focused on Field instead of a lot of internal stuff. I think she's revolutionized, not revolutionized, but certainly taken the State Dems into a much better direction. And even just from going from caucus to primary system - all of it, I think, has been better for the State Dems in general. So I'm a big fan of Tina's. I think we need to remember what the State Chair does. So whoever is in that position is the face and voice for the State Party. They get to be the bad guy in a lot of ways. They get to be the attack dog, and that's the role that they have to play and sometimes it makes them unpopular. I think that they need to raise a lot of funds. They need to make a lot of friends and be close to the establishment - raising that money - while at the same time answering to the grassroots and more radical elements of the party who actually show up, knock doors, and do the hard work. It's a difficult position and I think whoever runs for it, and we'll know on January 28th who wins that position, has got to be prepared for walking that tightrope for the State Dems. I've seen that Shasti Conrad has already announced that she's running and has lined up a very impressive list of endorsers. So I know we both are Shasti fans and as the current Chair of the King County Democrats - or previous Chair of the King County Democrats - I think she's well positioned to take that role on. What do you think? [00:17:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, completely agree with you. And just - on Tina - that is a position that is really hard to get kudos for when you're doing things right. You're always making someone unhappy if you're doing things right. But what a contrast between the successes that we've had and built on in Washington state and the mess that we see in a state like New York. [00:18:18] Heather Weiner: Oh, right. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: That state party has just managed to really mess things up so severely that the entire country is paying for them - potentially just the composition of the House and the majority - looks like New York is responsible for messing that up. And just the calamity that is George Santos who - is that even his real name? Who has lied about everything under the sun? [00:18:53] Heather Weiner: Look - Tina is regarded by many of the state chairs around the country as one of the best in the country, because of what she's done with the State Party here. And I do want to say there's been a lot of criticism of her. I also am a woman who sometimes says things that piss people off. But I will say that, Look, if her name was Tim Podlodowski, she may have gotten a little bit less of the criticism for being the badass that she has been. Now, the next person who comes in is probably going to want to heal some of the intraparty wounds and build some bridges back. And I think that person has to be prepared to do some of that. But again, the State Party is often an unrecognized powerhouse behind many campaigns, Congressional campaigns, our recent campaign with Senator Murray. And the people who do that really hard work behind the scenes do deserve to be recognized - shout out to all of the State Dem staffers. [00:19:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We also saw news of Alex Pedersen on the Seattle City Council announcing that he will not be running again. [00:20:04] Heather Weiner: Number three - we have three open seats in Seattle. [00:20:08] Crystal Fincher: So what is this landscape? What does this mean for the City of Seattle? [00:20:13] Heather Weiner: First, let me just say - to everybody who's been asking, I am not working on any candidate campaigns in Seattle because - [00:20:18] Crystal Fincher: Ditto. [00:20:19] Heather Weiner: I can't do it anymore. It's just too emotional. It just wrecks me too much emotionally. It's just not good for my mental health, and my wife will kill me if I work on another candidate campaign in Seattle. So this is super interesting because I think that Bruce Harrell is actually still pretty popular in the City. I think that he - if nothing changes wildly between now and August, I think that his anointed candidates will definitely come through primaries, if not win. So I think whoever's running right now has to be ready to not attack Harrell and to be in a position to talk about how they're going to improve things or work with the current mayor. The current mayor is not - I do not get the sense that people are ready to hold this current mayor accountable for anything. They still like what he's doing. They think he's a nice guy. There's not been a major snowstorm or police shooting. So as far as the general public is concerned, Harrell's all right. And I think Inslee is actually giving Harrell and a lot of other city leaders a great out by running - going back to this bond initiative - by running this massive bond initiative referendum to fund housing and homelessness, because that is the major issue in major cities around the state. And in this way, the city leaders will be able to point to that, talk about how that's going to be the solution, and are able to walk away from it. [00:21:41] Crystal Fincher: I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. [00:21:43] Heather Weiner: Please - I love it when you disagree. [00:21:45] Crystal Fincher: I think that it's up in the air - and this is so interesting because this is like the conversations that we have amongst ourselves elsewhere - so I think the City is in a very interesting place. I think the City is progressive and frustrated at not feeling like issues are getting better, and not seeing issues get better that have been talked about as the most important issues - the crises that we're facing, yet still not seeing substantive or tangible improvement. And I think also - just looking at these last November elections - we see, especially in areas like North Seattle that have been traditionally thought of as more moderate - definitely look like they're different, like they're significantly more progressive than they were. And it makes sense when you think about the increase in renters, that the pressures on people of even generous incomes being able to afford the increasing and astronomical rent, just being able to enter the housing market in Seattle close to services and the City or being displaced further out from that. And so I think that you see the foundation of a more progressive shift, which we have seen a trend towards more progressive policy over the past several years overall. Now, this is an odd year. We're not going to see the same level of turnout, which is why we talk about even- versus odd-year elections this year - and that is a headwind. So it's going to be really interesting to see. And I actually think the individual candidates are going to make a difference. How can they articulate a vision of what they can get done positively that's not based on - to your point actually - what they dislike or grievances that they have, and more of a vision for what they can accomplish. How can they work together with people to do that? But I do think that people are more on guard than they used to be for - I'm the adult in the room, and I'm the conciliator and the person who can bring everyone together to find a place where everyone agrees and we can move forward, because - [00:24:07] Heather Weiner: I'd vote for you. I vote for you - that is the speech. You're probably right. And let's remember that in this year, the seats that will be open or up for re-election are going to be the district seats. So in this case, people who are currently going to stay in - like Tammy Morales, Dan, or Kshama - are going to have to show what they have done for the district. And people who are running for those open seats are going to have to be super hyper local focused on their district. What are they going to do for West Seattle? What are they going to do for North Seattle? And talk about that rather than the City around - and I think it's going to be a lot of geographic discussions, a lot of very specific - here's what we're doing for this park, here's what we're doing for this intersection - neighborhood community talk rather than the citywide referendum. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, I completely agree with that. [00:25:01] Heather Weiner: Yay, you agree! I was really looking forward to a smackdown though. One day, Crystal will just - it won't just be this chorus, and one day we'll have a fight about something and it will be really, really cool. I'll find something we disagree on - it's gonna be like mayonnaise versus mustard or something. [00:25:18] Crystal Fincher: Oh my goodness, there will be something someday. [00:25:22] Heather Weiner: So I just want to point out one more time for your listeners that there's two really big things happening the week of January 24th. One is this Washington Supreme Court hearing on the capital gains tax, which has enormous implications - not just for $500 million of funding a year for childcare and education that comes from the super super super rich, but also for our tax structure overall in the state. And the second is - much more micro - is the election of the new Washington State Party Chair two days later. So that's going to be a really interesting week. I can't wait to see who you have on that week to discuss what's happening there. [00:26:04] Crystal Fincher: It'll be interesting to see. We also have a couple of things. We have a special election coming up in many jurisdictions in the state, including the City of Vancouver, Washington. But particularly in the City of Seattle - on February 14th, there will be a special election. If you know me, you know that I am not a fan of these February, April special election dates just because they are notoriously low turnout, but there is going to be a vote on social housing. Speaking of the motivation to address homelessness and housing affordability in this crisis, this is going to be on the ballot. We actually have a show coming up about this topic, but this will give Seattle the opportunity to establish a public developer - that establish publicly-owned, permanently affordable, cross-class communities with resident leadership - and basically establishing a type of social housing where it takes away the privatization, capitalist profit motive basically, of housing that we've seen where people are looking to create increased profits and income from raising rents. And really take away the ability to raise it and use resident funds to fund just the maintenance and upkeep without the pressure in - that happens in conjunction with the private sector - to continue to raise rents and hopefully create more sustainable, affordable, publicly-owned social housing that can start to address this housing affordability crisis and put in place a new and different model that isn't as reliant on federal funding, on federal income guidelines - and just give the City more flexibility to address its own issues. So this is going to be a really interesting thing that we have coming up. Ballots will be mailed on January 27, so that's coming sooner than we think. How do you see this playing out? [00:28:20] Heather Weiner: Who is going to come out and oppose this? That's really what I want to know. I haven't heard that much from opposition right now, and I think it's really just going to be about how it's framed for the voters. I'm thinking a lot about ranked choice voting and how that kind of was the sneaker issue that came in. And at the last moment, they sent out really good mail - shout out to Moxie Media for some really good mail on that campaign - and won, not by a landslide - but won on a confusing campaign. So I wonder if this is maybe the sneaker issue also - that there isn't really a well organized opposition and it gets through. [00:29:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I think how this is explained to the masses is going to be the thing. I actually completely agree - [00:29:08] Heather Weiner: Again! [00:29:09] Crystal Fincher: - just in the shout out with - on an issue that on its face is confusing to explain to voters - in what we just saw with ranked choice voting beating out approval voting. I think that was a great example of looking at - just when you have to communicate this simply to the masses - man, the ranked choice voting mail was excellent. The way that was communicated to all of the people - there are the people who pay attention, which is not a big percentage of people. We're abnormal. If you're listening to this show, you are abnormal. [00:29:41] Heather Weiner: You're just now noticing that we're abnormal. You want to know how abnormal I am? Every piece of political mail that comes into our household - my wife knows to set aside for me because I keep it in a folder. I just keep all of the mail. I hoard it because I love to go back through it later and see what people did, what they didn't do. Look at you - you do the same thing - you have - Oh my gosh, you have Teresa Mosqueda - look at you with all that mail. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: That is me pulling up my - [00:30:10] Heather Weiner: That is sexy. That is - I'm coming over for a date. I'm gonna bring a bottle of wine, some candles, and we're going to go through your mail, your political mail - [00:30:18] Crystal Fincher: We're going to go through mail. [00:30:19] Heather Weiner: I always vote late, just so I can get the mail and I can see how people are doing it. And I like to play the guessing game of which firm did this mail - because there are certain firms that shall go unnamed that just do the same boilerplate, same design over and over and over again - and I can spot them a mile away. And then there's some people who just look like they did it with a Word doc and just threw it together - maybe on purpose, maybe not. And then there's sometimes just really highly polished, really engaging, creative stuff. So I love to hoard the mail. I've got a whole box over here, Crystal - come over, honey, put on something comfy, and we'll go sit on the couch and go through it together. [00:30:59] Crystal Fincher: Oh, we're going to do that. I will bring my accordion file full of stuff. [00:31:07] Heather Weiner: I'm not going to cheat on you - not cheating on you, honey. I also want to say a shout - a big warning to some folks out there who have sent out recent mail - it's called householding. When you do not send five pieces of mail to the same household - it's annoying to the household and it looks like a waste of money. It looks like your consultant's not doing a good job, so - to certain people who have sent out mail recently and not householded, you need to have a conversation with your people. That is a waste of postage. It's a waste of - it's a waste of postage when it really comes down to it. [00:31:41] Crystal Fincher: It's a waste of postage, it's a waste of - yeah, it's a waste. [00:31:45] Heather Weiner: It's called householding. [00:31:46] Crystal Fincher: It is. And every year someone wins the - I-spelled-our-candidate's-name-wrong-on-the-mail lottery. [00:31:53] Heather Weiner: Can we do an episode where all we do is just go through and make fun of ourselves and other people who make huge mistakes on mail - including me, by the way. I mean, that word "public" - it's often, loses the L. [00:32:05] Crystal Fincher: Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Yeah, there are, there are a lot - yeah, you would be, you would be surprised. [00:32:14] Heather Weiner: Also, I recently saw a piece of mail where "county" lost the O. [00:32:19] Crystal Fincher: Oh no. [00:32:23] Heather Weiner: Yeah. [00:32:25] Crystal Fincher: There are all sorts of things that go wrong with mail and it still has - mail still has some utility. Obviously - [00:32:37] Heather Weiner: Oh - mail still has some utility? I think mail has increased in utility over - since COVID. Tell me, tell me why you think it still has utility and then I'll give you the counterpoint. [00:32:46] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely still has utility - one, especially during COVID when Field was impacted - that's a challenge. But it's so hard. Basically I think that you have to do everything, that you have to try and get to people in every way - I have to show you the commercials that we did. [00:33:05] Heather Weiner: Oh, I'd like to see them. Oh, I've seen a couple. I've seen a couple. They were really good. [00:33:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. But it's just hard, and I think lots of people who don't do this don't realize how hard it is just to get people's attention. The hardest thing to do - for a candidate or an issue - is not necessarily to beat your opponent. It's just to let people know that you exist. It's to break through all of the noise - because people are sick and tired of political stuff anyway. And there's so much happening, especially like last year when we had competitive Congressional races in many districts and legislative races, and there are so many political messages flying, there are five different mailers landing in mailboxes every day. Everything is a commercial in the middle of everything and just everything is that - it's hard to break through. And so really trying to stand out and in ways that are - that get you in front of the eyeballs of people - even if it's just the few seconds between when they pick up their mail and walk to the recycle bin, or they're half paying attention to a commercial. Hopefully people are making it to the doors also, but that's hard to do in a citywide election, in a City of Seattle. And maybe you can get to 50,000 people, but what are you going to do for the other 150,000-200,000? [00:34:31] Heather Weiner: Look, mail is not - if you're down by 10 points, mail is not going to win, is not going to win it for you. But if you're down by 1 or you need to - you are tied - mail can definitely make the difference. And let me tell you why. Let me tell you why, Crystal. Number one, it gets - you definitely are getting into the household, right? It's not like digital, it's not like TV - you know that that voter - it's getting into that voter's household. Number two, you can micro-target the messaging to that household, unlike other ways. You can do that with digital somewhat - but really with mail, you can do an excellent job. And the third is voters want to make the right decision. They want information and to have that written information in front of them - that's comprehensive, that's just not a pretty picture and a whole bunch of endorsement logos, but actually has some - what am I saying? - some crunchy information in it. Voters want that and will keep it. And particularly people say, Oh, younger voters, they don't check their mail. Younger voters find mail to be - I don't know - quaint and interesting, and like to get letters and like to get things that are personally addressed to them because it makes them feel like - 'cause they're real people. So I am - I actually think mail is more effective and more important than ever right now. And I am not solely - I will do mail for campaigns, but I am not pitching my firm as a mail campaign. I'm just saying in general, do not discount it. And do not get yourself all, get your panties all in a twist about TV and cable and everything all the time - broadcast TV, God forbid - spend that money on getting to the people who vote. [00:36:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. And also, especially in a vote-by-mail state - we're a 100% vote-by-mail state - mail is in the same medium as the ballot and the information that they're getting. Mail absolutely matters and it is one of - still - the most efficient methods to get to people that you can't talk to personally. [00:36:27] Heather Weiner: Well, I just would like to invite you to come over one night and take a look at my mail. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Mail - it's a very vulnerable thing. It's a very sensitive thing. People are very sensitive about their mail. There is actually a reason why we have not done a mail breakdown on-air because people are very sensitive. [00:36:46] Heather Weiner: There are people who will never come on your show about their mail [00:36:49] Crystal Fincher: About their mail - and all of us are - it's not like every piece of mail I do is excellent, or dynamic, or on purpose. [00:36:56] Heather Weiner: We could do noteworthy mail - how about that? I would love to do one - it'd be hard to do on a podcast 'cause people can't see it, but I would love to do - it's like one of those cooking shows where you can't taste what the people are talking about - but I would love to do one going through, like over the years, some really noteworthy mail. And I've got a couple that are just - there's one, there was a piece where it had a black hole cut out in it, and it was talking about how something was a waste of money and it was a black hole - that was by a consultant from the East Coast. There's another consultant who did a piece of mail - attack mail in a leg race that was real - oh no, it was in a city council race - that was horrible and awful, and I think won that election for that candidate. So I would love to go through that sometime - that'd be really fun. And also it would be really interesting to a niche audience of approximately 12 people, Crystal, so maybe not. [00:37:51] Crystal Fincher: Oh, I mean - we would have 32 people who were riveted in that conversation. I don't want to rip people live on-air. [00:38:04] Heather Weiner: Let's just only talk about noteworthy things. [00:38:06] Crystal Fincher: Yes. And my biggest note - usually my biggest thing - is just trying to overcommunicate on mail. There - you can, if you try and say too much, you actually end up saying nothing. 'Cause people do need to be able to get what your - pick up what you're putting down at a glance. And then give them some hooks for a little bit more stuff. But you make that hard to do when you bury stuff in text. But anyway, we can talk about mail forever. But we will wrap up today's show. And thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 6th, 2023. [00:38:45] Heather Weiner: Oh my goodness. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's January 6th - a happy Insurrection Anniversary and Speaker Groundhog Day on the federal level. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. [00:39:03] Heather Weiner: Thanks for having me. [00:39:04] Crystal Fincher: You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner and that's H-L-W-E-I-N-E-R. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. Please leave us a review if you like us. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

On today's midweek show, Crystal welcomes Senator Manka Dhingra, Chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee, to preview the tough issues her committee will take on in the upcoming legislative session. Senator Dhingra walks through her data-driven and community-informed approach to legislating and how this lens guides her thinking on revisiting the Blake decision fix, a temporary solution put in place by the Legislature in 2021 when the Washington Supreme Court struck down the state's drug possession law as unconstitutional. Despite widespread recognition of the need for a public health approach to substance use disorder, Crystal and Senator Dhingra lament the unfortunate political truth that the public is often ahead of elected officials and that the Blake fix will likely not be based on best practices.  The two then discuss the pushback from some in law enforcement interests in response to bills that restricted their use of high-speed vehicle pursuits and sought to hold officers liable for taking wrong actions. Senator Dhingra stands by these policies that solve the issues of unnecessary bystander deaths and community demands for reduction in police violence. Finally, the show wraps up with what a trauma-informed criminal justice system could look like, where implementation of the 988 crisis system is, and Senator Dhingra's delightful tradition of introducing legislation from teenagers in her district. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Senator Manka Dhingra at @Dhingrama.   Senator Manka Dhingra Manka Dhingra is Deputy Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate. She brings two decades of experience as a prosecutor to her role as Chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee. She also serves on the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee and Senate Ways & Means Committee.  In November 2017, Dhingra was elected to the Senate by the constituents of the 45th Legislative District, the first Sikh legislator in the nation. Since then, she has sponsored and passed legislation addressing a wide range of issue areas, including: curbing domestic violence and sexual assault, preventing firearm violence, providing property tax relief for seniors and people with disabilities, prosecuting financial fraud, and reforming the criminal justice system with an evidence-based approach.  During her time in the Senate, Dhingra has helped pass legislation and funding to transform the Washington State behavioral health system, reorienting it around prevention rather than crisis response. She continues to strive to ensure that Washingtonians with behavioral health needs get the treatment they need and deserve. As a member of the Special Committee on Economic Recovery, she is helping the state craft an economic plan to lead an equitable recovery from the COVID economic downturn. She also serves on several task forces dedicated to reducing poverty, reforming the criminal justice system, improving equity in state government, and providing a sound and fair fiscal footing for the state.  Dhingra continues to serve as a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. As Chair of the Therapeutic Alternative Unit, Manka helped develop and oversee the Regional Mental Health Court, the Veterans Court, and the Community Assessment and Referral for Diversion program. As a mental health and crisis intervention expert, she has also been an instructor at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission for the 40-hour Crisis Intervention Training for law enforcement officers to reduce the risk of tragedy and improve the response to people in crisis.  Outside the courtroom, Dhingra is a community leader and anti-domestic violence advocate on the Eastside. She co-founded Chaya, an organization that assists South Asian survivors of domestic violence and led the organization's work to end systemic violence through education and prevention. She also serves on the board of Hopelink.   Resources Senator Manka Dhingra | Washington Senate Democrats   “With Dhingra's Win, Democrats Take Control of the State Senate” by Hayat Norimine from SeattleMet   Q & A: The Blake Decision | ACLU of Washington   “In Last-Minute Move, Legislature Adopts New Approach to Drug Possession” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola   “WA lawmakers try to thread needle on drug possession, to mixed reviews” by David Kroman from Crosscut   “Washington Voters Want to Decriminalize Drug Possession and Fund Substance Abuse Resources” by Anika Dandekar with Data For Progress   State v. Blake: ESB 5476 and behavioral health expansion | Washington Health Care Authority   “Not all crimes merit high-speed chases that risk bystanders' lives” by Manka Dhingra in The Seattle Times   “Pursuits and Fatalities in WA since 2015” by Martina Morris from Next Steps Washington and Washington Coalition for Police Accountability   2021-2022 Washington State Legislature Policing Bills Explainer | People Power Washington   “State leaders prepare for implementation of the 988 call line” by Shane Ersland from State of Reform   “Meet the students who fought for free menstrual products at Washington schools — and won” by Sara Gentzler from The Olympian   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. So today I'm absolutely thrilled to have joining us the Deputy Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate, Manka Dhingra. Welcome. [00:00:47] Senator Manka Dhingra: Thank you so much. It is such a pleasure to be here with you. [00:00:50] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely a pleasure to have you - have followed your work and admired your work for quite some time. So you are also the Chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee, you've done a lot of work. I just wanted to start off with - what was your path to the State Senate and what have you been working on? [00:01:11] Senator Manka Dhingra: So I'll just say my path to the State Senate has been extremely unusual. I don't know anyone else who came into politics the way I did. I, as a young person, knew very early that I wanted to go to law school and that I wanted to be a prosecutor. I got involved in gender-based violence early on because my grandmother used to help survivors of domestic violence back in India. And so I went to law school, became a prosecutor with King County. I actually created and ran the first ever Therapeutic Alternative Unit where we really took a look at alternatives to incarceration, crisis intervention. I helped train law enforcement in the 40-hour crisis intervention training at the Criminal Justice Training Center. And I considered myself a good Democrat because I voted. And then we had our 2016 national election. And for the first time in my life, I was actually having an Election Night party at my house because I really wanted my children to see the face of the first U.S. woman president. Clearly the night did not go as I had planned. And so I went to my first Democratic Party meeting that December. And when I went there, I can tell you that the room was full - packed - with women. When I looked around that room, I recognized so many of the PTSA moms. And most of us were there, again, for the very first time because we felt we had to do something. And I didn't know what that something would look like. And a very good friend of mine who was on city council saw me there and she said, We have to have coffee. And so we sat down for coffee and her first question was, Do you want to run for office? And my response was, I don't think I'm qualified. And she literally fell off her chair laughing. And later I realized what a cliché my response was because apparently that's what all of us women say - we think we're not qualified. So she kind of worked on me and we had a Senate seat that was available. And February 14th, I announced I was running for the Senate. So my entire political engagement from the time from my first meeting to me announcing for Senate was two months. [00:03:25] Crystal Fincher: Wow. Well, and then you ran in a district where your victory was certainly not guaranteed - very competitive race - where you were successful and victorious and a first yourself, the first Sikh member of our state Senate. How did you use all of your lived experience in the Senate and how was your first term? [00:03:56] Senator Manka Dhingra: So the election was exciting because my seat actually flipped our State Senate. So our Senate was controlled by the Republicans and when I won, Democrats got in control. So the first session was actually pure chaos because we'd had gridlock in Olympia for so many years because we really couldn't pass meaningful bills. We had a session that would go into special session year after year because budgets couldn't be agreed upon. The year I was running, there were three special sessions and they still did not have all their budgets passed. And so when I won, normally people have orientation or some kind of onboarding. But when I won - because of the change - we had new Chairs, all this legislation that had been blocked for so many years like the flood gates had opened. So it was a very exciting time because I think we just passed such amazing progressive legislation and really were this beacon of light for the entire country on what a progressive legislation could look like or what a progressive state can look like. But I got to tell you, I was kind of lost in the mix there. But luckily I was able to hold my own and was very proud of the nine bills I passed my first session. [00:05:16] Crystal Fincher: And what were some of those bills? [00:05:17] Senator Manka Dhingra: So a lot of those bills were things that had really irked me for a very long time as an attorney and as a prosecutor. So there were a lot of bills around helping survivors of domestic violence, there were bills around sexual assault, around trafficking, and I had a Medicaid fraud unit bill, work around behavior health because I have been very concerned about mental illness and substance use disorder in our state. And normally when you're a first-time legislator, they do this thing on the Senate floor where your first bill - people actually kind of tease you a little about it or kind of give you a hard time. And when they looked at all my bills, they were all of such serious matters that they couldn't figure out which one should be my first bill. And so actually the Medicaid fraud unit was my first bill because that was the least serious about my other bills. But this was legislation that I knew that had to be fixed and we needed to do it. And frankly, I think the reason why I was so successful is because most of my bill ideas come from people who do the work and are able to really articulate what the problems are and then have the solutions because they're the experts in that field. And so I have maintained that manner of doing my work - is really making sure I hear from the people on the ground doing the work. [00:06:42] Crystal Fincher: And you have built that reputation of being very in touch with the community, of reaching out to stakeholders for your various bills, making sure that you speak with, inform, get feedback from people who are involved with and impacted by legislation you're proposing and the issues you're trying to address. One such issue was spurred by the Blake decision - that the Supreme Court found in our state - that essentially decriminalized personal use possession. And because of some challenges that that presented, like a potential patchwork of different laws passed by different cities all throughout the state, the Legislature decided to take action to try and pass one uniform policy all across the state. What was your approach to that and where did that end up? [00:07:30] Senator Manka Dhingra: Thank you. That is really the issue and the question that has been - people have been interested in for the last two years. Any time legislation is required, my question always is why? And what you gave in your question was really one of the reasons why we knew that legislation - is because we wanted a uniform way of making sure enforcement is the same for people, that they're not treated differently because they're using at a different intersection down the street. So that's why we wanted to make sure we had state legislation. This decision came out in the middle of session, so the timing was not optimal. And then it was very important to me to have a solution that is based on best practices and that is practical. So the original bill that I had was actually based on what the policy of the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office was, along with a lot of the other prosecuting attorney's offices around the state. Because what we found at that time is - a lot of people doing this work had realized - that dealing with substance use disorder, it's not a criminal justice issue, it's a public health issue. And treating it like a criminal justice issue is what has really led us to where we are today. But you have to make sure you're focused on getting people into the treatment that they need. And so I was really trying to come up with a solution that said you have to have public health lead. And you also have to understand that while using the substance shouldn't be illegal, if there's criminal activity around that - like theft, criminal trespass, possession of weapons - that is still a criminal offense, but really being able to focus on treatment. So after a lot of negotiations, because I'll tell you, elected officials are very nervous of criminal justice issues. And I come from it differently because I practiced for 17 years. And we unfortunately did not get a bill that was based on best practices. We came close, but not quite. So what became the law of the land is that law enforcement was going to offer diversion the first two times that they came into contact with an individual. And then only after that would they refer that for a criminal case. And we took this opportunity to really provide a lot of resources for treatment - so we ensured that we had substance use disorder navigators who can help get people into treatment, we provided funding for treatment like Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, to wraparound teams like HOST - Homeless Outreach Stabilization Teams, PACT - these assertive community treatment models. So really making sure that those resources go hand-in-hand, because if people have no place to go and they don't have treatment, nothing's going to really work. I also wanted to make sure that because we were creating this in the middle of session, that we had an expiration date. So I insisted that this law expire in three years. And we created a committee or task force made up of a wide variety of individuals - people with lived experience, people in the treatment community, housing people, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense - everyone who deals with this issue to come together to come up with recommendations. So those recommendations have officially been made. And our law expires this 2023, so we as the Legislature have to actually pass another substance use disorder law to make sure that we're, again, pushing ourselves to doing things that are based on - with best practices. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Now the bill did not end up - at that time what passed - was not what you were ultimately happy with and didn't earn your vote at that time. But you did say that - because of some of those things that were funded, you really wanted to focus on getting those implemented and working across the state, because it's important to - if someone is going to make a referral for treatment or for services, that those services be available. And we were in a situation where those were not available in sufficient quantities around the state and people may not have been able to get their needs met. Where do those stand today? How far have we made it in terms of implementation and availability of services? [00:12:02] Senator Manka Dhingra: So I'll just say - on paper - the funding, the availability of services looked amazing. And then COVID hit. And one of the biggest barriers became COVID, because we weren't really able to implement everything that we wanted to. We had inpatient treatment services that had to be dramatically reduced because of social distancing - they had to limit their bed capacity. And so it's very challenging to talk about how successful or not successful this program could have been because it was greatly hampered by COVID. And we know from years and years of data and just knowing how humans behave - that when there is a huge incident like COVID - people do tend to self-medicate because of anxiety and depression. And we saw that. We saw use of alcohol and drugs go up exponentially because people were dealing with trauma. And so the combination of factors made it a lot more challenging. And so the resources weren't able to be deployed as timely as we would have liked. Now we're in a position - with this summer, we were able to do statewide deployment of the substance use navigators, so now they're around. We have funded a lot more options for law enforcement assisted diversions. So we have this program set up, but unfortunately we also had a lot of inpatient treatments that actually closed - because of COVID and their not being sustainable. The other issue also became is - there are a lot of individuals who really feel that there has to be an option for court-directed treatment - the court has to force you to do treatment. And so one of the things we had talked about is - if you want the option of that, you still have that through Drug Court, Mental Health Court, Veterans Court - if people engage in other criminal activity in addition to substance use disorder. We also have a civil commitment statute - we have Involuntary Treatment Act - we have assisted treatment where if you really want it to be court-ordered, you can do it through the civil system. And so we were really hoping to ramp up our civil system to do that. And again, due to COVID and what happened with our judicial system, we weren't really able to get there. So I would say where we are now from when the bill was passed - not as far along as we would have liked. And we simply haven't had the time to give these programs the setup that they actually needed. So in an ideal situation, I would have liked to see one more year of us working under this bill to really see what's working and what's not, and then come up with a different solution. But unfortunately we don't have that time and COVID did make things more challenging in terms of implementation. [00:15:00] Crystal Fincher: So in terms of these programs and what was funded and addressing the capacity and now increased staffing issues with a lot of these services, is there going to be a push for increased funding? Does the existing funding already cover the implementation? What action needs to be taken from the legislature to ensure that in another year's time we are where we do want to be? [00:15:24] Senator Manka Dhingra: So absolutely the funding needs to continue and it will. The cities and the counties that do have the programs up and running - because it was a gradual start - have actually shown really positive results. We are seeing individuals getting the help they need. We have had law enforcement in those areas actually appreciate the resources that have been provided to the community to do this work. We also have to take a look at - how do we staff inpatient units? The way we pay them for per bed usage doesn't really work when you have pandemics because a third of the beds can't be used. So if you're only paying them for the beds, they can't do full staffing if they're not allowed to use a third of their beds. So we really have to rethink what that payment for treatment looks like. And there've been some really interesting ideas on integration, and paying for the whole person, and paying for programs rather than for each beds. And that's what COVID really taught us - being really creative on how we are supporting some of our community clinics, so I think you're going to see some really exciting stuff coming in on more integrated community-led efforts. Our federal government, in the last two years under President Biden, has really made a lot of federal dollars available for us to do this work. And Washington is really set up very well to take advantage of these federal dollars. I think it's still an exciting time and - it always gets darkest before the light, but I do think we are going to be turning the corner on the opioid epidemic. [00:17:06] Crystal Fincher: I hope so. And so now you're going to be taking up this legislation again - you're forced to - and many people were supportive of the sunset and revisiting of this legislation this session. It looks like there, once again, is a mixed variety of opinions on the right way forward this session. And it looks like there are a growing amount of people, supported by what looks like changing public sentiment, or absolutely a number of polls in support of a public health approach as opposed to a criminalized approach to substance use disorder and possession of personal amounts. Is there the opportunity this session to move towards a full public health approach and move away from criminalization of personal possession of substances? [00:17:59] Senator Manka Dhingra: I wish I could tell you there was. This is unfortunately the truth in politics that I've learned - is that normally the public is way ahead of elected officials. Over and over again, I've heard from the public that when they see their loved one, their neighbor, their friend, or even the stranger struggling with substance use disorder, they want treatment. The first response isn't to send someone to prison. And so the recommendation out of this committee - it's actually called SURSAC [Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee] - was for decriminalization of personal use. And so the bill that I will be sponsoring is based on the committee's recommendation, because I think it's really important to honor that work. That work and their conclusions are based on best practices, it's data driven through looking at what has worked around the world - not just in the United States - because we know this is a worldwide problem. We don't have the votes for that in the Senate or in the House. So I'll have my bill, which is based on best practices and data. We are going to have another bill by Senator Robinson, who is going to take a lot of the treatment recommendations coming out of that group, but it does make possession of personal use a gross misdemeanor. It encourages diversion, but that's where it's at. We're going to have other individuals who may want to make it back as a felony - I don't think there's appetite at all to have it be a felony because that has failed so miserably. And I know there's some interest in making it a misdemeanor. All of those have issues, right? No one is going to agree on one version of it, but I think the best decisions are always the decisions that are made when they're data-driven. I don't think our legislature is there. I don't think the Blake fix is going to be evidence-based or data-driven. It will criminalize personal drug use with a lot of options for diversion. And the hope really is that the prosecutors, the judges are in a position to make those referrals. The hope really is that community resources come in and are able to help people outside of the criminal justice system. I'm a little disappointed, but that's human nature. All you can do is continue to make the case on trying to do things that work. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. [00:20:41] Senator Manka Dhingra: But people are driven by fear. [00:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And appreciate your continued work to continue to make the case and for standing by that when it comes to voting. Is there the opportunity with this to implement another sunset - for as you said, as we get more infrastructure set up around the state, accounting for the COVID delays and challenges, that maybe we get to revisit this in another couple of years? [00:21:08] Senator Manka Dhingra: You know, I'm not sure about that - we'll have to see how it works. The reality is you can have whatever laws you want - it depends on what implementation looks like. So when the Blake decision came out, the current individuals who were charged with drug possession cases - all those cases had to be dismissed. And if they were in custody, they had to be released. Now, I was very curious to know how many of those individuals currently existed, because I had heard and know that most of these cases weren't being prosecuted - that they were actually being deferred. And that was actually true. People thought the Drug Courts would close - they didn't. There were very few Drug Courts that actually had individuals that were only there for drug possession cases, because the culture of enforcement has changed so much. Because the people that do that work know that having someone go through the court system or look at incarceration does not improve the substance use disorder. It actually makes it worse. And so practically, there were not people in Drug Court to any significant degree when this decision came out. And that's why I tried to tell people - that there was already that recognition in our criminal justice system that said, We're not prosecuting these individuals, they're being offered diversions at the time of booking. Or they end up pleading guilty to a reduced sentence and finish that time in jail and leave. So there is a disconnect between the laws on our book and what is being implemented. And I think all we can do is actually make that community treatment program really robust and provide those resources, and destigmatize substance use disorder so that people can actually feel comfortable going for treatment and acknowledging that they have a problem. [00:22:56] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. Another issue that has been an issue that has been talked about throughout the community has been those surrounding police pursuits. High speed vehicle chases - I suppose some may not be at high speeds - but pursuing people who they suspect of fleeing because of some crime or being wanted for a reason. And lots of talk in the community and data and evidence about the injuries and deaths caused by police pursuits - and really weighing whether the risk of pursuit is worth it in cases where someone is not wanted for a violent crime and people's health and wellbeing seem to be in immediate jeopardy, as opposed to a property crime or something else like that. What is the work that you've done on that? And do you anticipate that being an issue? Where do you stand on that? [00:23:53] Senator Manka Dhingra: I go back to the way I deal with legislation - I start off with what is the problem you're trying to solve? So when it came to police pursuits, the question was - what is the problem we're trying to solve? And the problem we were trying to solve is data that came out that said 50% of the people that are killed during police chases are individuals that have nothing to do with the incident. These are innocent bystanders who get killed. And that number is at 50% in the state. That is an unacceptable number. So we took a look and said, OK, how can we reduce that number? And so the police pursuit bill that was passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law is one that's actually based in best practices. It was based on a policy that very closely mirrored what a lot of our cities were already doing. So we do have some cities that had very similar policies and others that frankly were not good partners in doing this work. And so we passed that. There were a few cities who didn't really have to change their policies because that is what their official policy was. And there were others that were forced to change their policy. And this is exactly what you mentioned, Crystal - it is about doing that analysis. We made sure that if it's a domestic violence case, you can pursue the vehicle. If it's a case involving violence, you can pursue the vehicle. If it's a DUI, you can pursue the vehicle. But when it comes to property, we said, No, you can't - because there are other ways to catch an individual in today's day and age. And guess what? We haven't had innocent people dying since this policy was enacted. So did we solve the problem of not having 50% of the fatalities be uninvolved? We absolutely did. We do not have innocent people dying in vehicle pursuits. And I've heard criticism that, Oh, people are just fleeing and not getting caught. And I've asked the question, Are they not getting caught in that instant? Are they getting arrested the next day or a few days later? Guess what? They're being arrested, they're just arrested a few days later. And now they're being charged with a felony - attempting to elude - because they fled. So I know that there are cities and law enforcement agencies that want us to go back on our vehicle pursuit bill. And I have asked them for data - because I do tend to be data-driven - and I've said, Show me how many people have not been caught because of this data. The only data they can show me is the number of pursuits is up. And I'm like, And what happens the day after? Because when they share the stories with me, they always end with, Oh, yes, and we caught the guy two days later or the next day. And so again, I think for those who want us to change our policy, I come back with what is the problem you're trying to solve and where is the data supporting that? And I have not seen the data that tells me that this is the wrong policy. [00:26:53] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I appreciate the approach you take in being very data-driven because really - there's a lot of conflicting information out there. There's a lot of people who sometimes are scared just by change. And so looking at what the situation actually is based on evidence makes a lot of sense. This was an issue with a number of bills around public safety in prior sessions where there - in 2020 - where a number of accountability bills passed. And then following that, some seeming cold feet amid pushback from some law enforcement officials and others saying, Well, you have prevented us from being able to do our jobs and you're putting public safety at risk by holding us more accountable. What was your take on that, and on some of the legislation that rolled back some of the accountability progress that was made? [00:27:53] Senator Manka Dhingra: When people started saying - Oh, the Legislature prevented us from doing our work, my question was - No, we made sure you can be held liable for taking wrong actions. If they choose not to act because they're afraid of liability, that is not the Legislature preventing them from doing their job. It's that they have to relearn how to do their job. Or go back to best practices that they were taught - but over time, those practices have kind of gone away because you just kind of start doing what everyone else does and not really focus on best practices. And the bottom line is this. We had to do all of that work because of George Floyd. And the years and years and years of Black people telling us that they're being killed at the hands of law enforcement and frankly, the world not listening - until we had COVID, was stuck in our house, didn't have any new Hollywood movies coming out or new TV shows coming out - and we had to watch the video that was captured. And finally acknowledge and say, Yes, what people have been saying is true and real. We, as elected officials, have to do something about it. So it comes down to, again, what is the problem that we were trying to solve? And the problem is that Black and Brown men and women are treated unfairly with law enforcement. And when you see that so blatantly and so starkly that you cannot make excuses for it anymore, like we have been for decades, you have to do something and you cannot do business as usual. There has to be accountability. And like you said, change is hard. People don't like making change. But unless they do it themselves, it is thrusted upon them and that is - the job of electeds and the Legislature is to make sure we are standing up for each and every human being. I represent cities like Duvall and Woodinville, Redmond, Kirkland - each and every one of these cities had a Black Lives Matter protest - down in Duvall, Woodinville, Redmond, Kirkland. I was there at all of them. This is something that our population demanded and the Legislature provided. And it's going to take a while for people to make the changes, but these are changes that are needed. We are an outlier in the United States when it comes to fatalities at the hand of law enforcement. No other country has that rate like the US does. And it's time we took it seriously and put in practices that are going to prevent it. [00:30:46] Crystal Fincher: Agreed. And as you talked about before, lots of times the public is more in tune with data and reality - because they're living it - than some of the elected officials. We just saw in these past elections in November where we had a county prosecutor race where people with two very different views were running. One focused on more punitive punishment measures, focused a lot on criminalization and focusing on that. Another one who's saying, Okay, we're not going to not follow the law, but we need to follow the evidence and start to pursue policies, or continue the path of pursuing policies like diversion that have been shown to be more successful in helping people get on a productive path to not commit any more crimes and to reduce the amount of people who are victimized. As you continue through this path of various legislation in this session, what is your message to people who do say that police accountability gets in the way of public safety? [00:31:54] Senator Manka Dhingra: And I just say that is absolutely not true. Holding someone responsible for bad actions has nothing to do with public safety. Public safety is about your perception of safety. You can talk about domestic violence and I can tell you, and I'm going to say mostly women - because we are talking mostly women who are victims or survivors - they have not felt safe in their house for decades. And people will not say that that is a public safety issue because they're thinking about what happens when they walk down the street, not what is happening in their own home. When we talk about sexual assault, it's a different concept of public safety. When we talk about trafficking, it's different. And so we have to - when we talk about public safety, it's not about property crimes. It's about individuals feeling safe - at home, in their school, or out in the street. And so we have to be focused on human safety and them feeling safe in whatever environment they're in. Right now when people talk about public safety, they're only talking about car thefts, and thefts from businesses, and graffiti, and seeing people using drugs on the street - that's not public safety. Those all tend to be public health issues and systems that aren't funded appropriately. And frankly, the systemic racism that has occurred in this country for generations that has allowed these wealth inequities. So we have to talk about public safety as the human feeling safe. And I can tell you - it is women, women of color who are most at risk of being victims of public safety, but we don't talk about that. I do. And that is how I frame these issues is - we have done a terrible job when it comes to investigating, reporting, prosecuting sexual assault. Same thing about domestic violence, same thing about trafficking. And when you take a look at the ills in our society, it comes down to gender-based violence. It comes down to our children being raised in households where they see domestic violence, the trauma that occurs through there. So public safety is a lot more complicated than seeing there's a rise in their concerns about public safety - because when you really take a look at the holistic concept of public safety, there isn't. And I'll just say for decades, crime in our country has been reducing. Then the last three years, because of the pandemic, you've seen a rise in violence and a rise in crimes, but overall, when you take a look at trend over decades, we are at a downward trend. It is still the best time to live in America right now than it ever has been. That is actually true. Technology is there to help us, we have more access to resources, there are more people being fed, and there are more people who are actually safe. So let's try to change that conversation on public safety because the sound bites are not based in reality. [00:34:55] Crystal Fincher: They really aren't. And it looks like by these - once again - most recent election results, the public recognizes that and wants to move towards more evidence-based solutions. I also want to talk about - you talk about who are most often victims of crime. And when we talk about victims, so often it's in the context of, Well, victims would want this person punished. And what are you going to say to the victims if this person doesn't spend a whole bunch of time in jail? But it seems like we engage less on - how do we actually best support victims? How do we do that? And how can we do better? [00:35:32] Senator Manka Dhingra: That is such a great question. Thank you so much for framing it the way you just did because that's absolutely true. People - because of TV shows - mostly have this image of this victim who's like this innocent, fragile, vulnerable person who has never done anything wrong in her life. That is not who the victim is. Victims are as complicated as any single human being. And many times when you take a look at a victim of crime, especially in our society, they're not strangers. You normally know the perpetrator of violence, and there's that connection. And so when you talk about what the victim wants, it isn't necessarily punishment or prison time for 20 years. It is much more nuanced and much more complicated. As I mentioned, I used to run the Therapeutic Alternative Unit, and we really used to make sure - we were the first in the country, actually, to not have any criminal history that's a bar to participate in this program. But I insisted that part of this program, we have a victim advocate. And that when there were crimes involving victims, that the victim's voice would be part of what the resolution is. And I cannot tell you - over and over again, when you provided victims the resources and the services and you explained the program, they wanted that defendant to go through that program. Because they want that person to get better, they want to make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to anyone else. And when the victim feels supported and has resources on their own, they can actually deal with their own trauma and move on - because no one wants to hold on to that hurt and that anger. It is not good for anybody. But unless we as a society can provide those resources and that support, the victims aren't going to get better. And when they don't, you just have that cycle over and over again. And one of the bills that I'm really proud of - I passed a couple of years ago - and it was about making sure that if you are a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault or trafficking, when you are on your path to recovery, you can get your criminal history, your convictions expunged. And the reason I really wanted that bill is because - trauma exerts itself as a reaction, not just as a memory. And so there are so many people in the criminal justice system who are survivors - they're survivors of violence. And they're engaging in the criminal justice system because of that trauma. And we don't have a criminal justice system that is trauma-informed. We're trying to get there. But being trauma-informed means you have to understand that anyone coming into that system may and most probably has suffered trauma. And unless you deal with that underlying trauma, you're going to continue on that cycle. So I think there's a lot more work we need to do in being trauma-informed throughout our criminal justice system. [00:38:31] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate that and appreciate your work. And also, your work on the 988 system. Can you explain what that is and where that stands in terms of implementation? [00:38:43] Senator Manka Dhingra: Absolutely - you're asking about my favorite bills. I've been working with the mental health community for a very long time in my other job as a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. And one of the things people have wanted for a very, very long time is a mental health crisis line. Because it's not illegal to be mentally ill, yet we call 911 and have law enforcement show up. And so 988 is a national number that went live in July. And we took this opportunity in the state of Washington to create an entire crisis system around 988. So right now, if anyone who needs help - if they're suicidal or in crisis, that's a mental health substance use disorder crisis - they can call 988. The 988 phone number is actually staffed by mental health professionals - individuals who are trained in how to deescalate and help with situations. And so we made sure that we provided funding for the people responding to the calls - that they had the credentials needed to do this work. We made sure that these hubs of 988 are actually going to - in the next few years, they are going to have a mobile response team that is made up of community mental health professionals along with peers. We are connecting 911 and 988 in the sense that there's cross-training - because a lot of the calls that come to 911 are actually mental health calls. So we want them to be able to transfer those calls through 988. And there may be times when a call comes into 988, but there's a weapon involved or a gun involved, and they need that help from 911. So we're working on cross-training and some kind of cross-mobilization. But what we have found is - from other states that have done some of this work - is that when you have a mental health professional answering these calls, 90% of the calls are able to be resolved. The 10% that need someone to show up for them - 7% can be handled with a mental health professional going out along with a peer, and only 3% need law enforcement. And so being a lot smarter about how we are responding to people in crisis - because they don't need to go to jail, most of them don't even need to go to an emergency room. We also took this opportunity to set up a structure where we can have more technology and data. We would love to do a bed tracking system, so someone who needs help - the 988 operator can take a look and know that there is a bed available for them, that they can connect them to treatment. Come January, our state mandates next-day appointments. So if you call the crisis line, your insurance or Medicaid - whatever it can be - is mandated that the next day you are going to go see somebody. And that's going to be a game changer because you're making sure people get the treatment they need when they need it. So I am super excited about this system. More work to be done on it, but we are well on our path to do it. We - normally, in the state of Washington, while we can be proud of so much, we are not the state that is in the top 10 for mental health services, but our 988 bill is the national model in the country. And I have to say, I was very proud - with Representative Orwall who sponsored the bill, and I - both of us got an award, actually a national award, recognizing us for our 988 bill. So very, very exciting time and so much more to come on this. [00:42:20] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. And what do you say to people who are concerned that - who are trying to avoid a situation that may be escalated, especially with some of the challenges that law enforcement have in responding to and deescalation, deescalating situations - whether it's people of color, or disabled people, or people in crisis - that calling 988 could result in a law enforcement response or an involuntary confinement for behavioral health treatment. [00:42:53] Senator Manka Dhingra: When I said the numbers on the percentage of calls and the manner in which they're dealt with, what you find is when you have the right resources right at the beginning, you don't need law enforcement, you don't need civil commitment because you are able to, again, use your motivational interviewing skills. You're able to offer people services and support. That next-day appointment is critical. Because if they're willing to go see someone - a doctor, a nurse, a mental health specialist, whoever that person may be - they don't need to be involuntary treatment, ITA'ed as they call it, because they're going in for treatment. So you have to make early intervention options available as much as possible. There are always those individuals who may need a high level of care, so you have to make sure that you are able to meet them wherever they are - but you got to make sure you're providing early intervention. I will have a bill next session that actually sets up these facilities called 23-hour facilities. And so the hope really is that those individuals who can't wait for the next-day appointment, that we are actually able to take them to these 23-hour facilities where the hope really is that they're there for 23 hours - because they can't stay there longer than that - and then you have to have a transition plan on how you're going to get them connected to other services and support. And that's what we have found is that - the right intervention at the right time - really, people want help, that's why they're calling. They're not calling because they actually want to kill themselves. It's because they're like, Help me, I'm afraid I'm going to do this. And so you have to provide the help that they're asking for. [00:44:31] Crystal Fincher: Much appreciated. I appreciate you taking the time to go through all of this with us today. As we close, I wanted to talk about one of my favorite things that you, or any legislator does - and that is working with youth. How do you do that? And what were you able to accomplish? [00:44:49] Senator Manka Dhingra: I love working with our youth. When I first ran for office five years ago - at that time, my kids were 13 and 15. And I used to coach Destination Imagination, and Math Team, and a lot of teams. And so I had to tell them that, Hey, I'm going to run for office, so I'm going to have to step aside from coaching these teams. And the teens were like, Can we help? And I'm like, Yes. So I had 250 teenagers helping me on my first and second campaign - no one had heard, seen so many teenagers working on a campaign. And so my promise to them was - I will continue engaging with them. So I sponsor bills that have been brought to me by teens every year for the last five years. And my favorite bill for next session is going to be one - is one - that's been brought to me by teens in my district. And that's around eliminating gender-based pricing. They literally went to Target and Costco and took pictures of a bike helmet that's pink in color and the exact same helmet - same company, same everything - that's blue in color. And the blue helmet is for $20 and the pink helmet is for $25. And they even did that with adult diapers. I didn't know this, but apparently women's adult diapers are much more expensive than men adult diapers - no clue why. So I'm going to have that bill next session - I'm super excited about it. But these teens are the ones that made sure we now have menstrual products in all our schools and college bathrooms. We no longer, in Washington, pay taxes on menstrual products. And it's not just this stuff they care about - they care about access to mental health treatment and services, and substance use disorder, and criminal justice reform. You name it, and these teens want to make positive changes. And I cannot tell you how excited I feel looking at the next generation. [00:46:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And this isn't even the first bill that they've brought to you. In fact, we have better access to menstrual products because of youth bringing up legislation, correct? [00:46:54] Senator Manka Dhingra: Absolutely. They really want to make sure that they can change the world. And that bill came about because of a conversation I was having with some of the teens. And the teens in the Redmond High School said they have menstrual products in their school. And I knew that teens in Kent and Moses Lake did not. And they started talking about how that's just not fair - that our school districts in more affluent communities are actually providing menstrual products than schools that are not in affluent areas. And guess who needs it more? And so just the fact that these teens think about access - and think about who is getting services and resources and who isn't - is just heartwarming for me. And the fact that they're willing to fight for others. So yes, all schools in Washington and colleges provide menstrual products in bathrooms now. [00:47:51] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And if people want to learn more about the work that you're doing or support legislation that you have, what's the best way for them to get engaged? [00:48:00] Senator Manka Dhingra: The best way is to email my office, or get a hold of me on social media, and subscribe to my newsletter. If anyone is interested in any particular bill or issue, my office can help you get connected to how to get more information. But check out our website, leg.wa.gov - they have a lot of resources on how you can follow a bill, how you can sign up to testify. Our hearings are all hybrid, so you can testify on an issue from the comfort of your home or your car - as long as you're not driving. And if you don't want to testify, you can send in written testimony or simply show your support for a bill or opposition to a bill - and all of that gets counted. And democracy is not an individual sport - it is a team sport. You got to play and you got to be part of a team - and that's the only way we make our world better. [00:48:56] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much today, Senator Manka Dhingra, for joining us and for sharing all of the work that you're doing. [00:49:02] Senator Manka Dhingra: Thank you so much. This was a great conversation and I loved absolutely chatting about these tough issues with you. [00:49:09] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you and we will stay in touch. Thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow me @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Note: In light of the growing body of news and evidence that the King County Jail is dangerous and ineffective at improving safety, the Hacks & Wonks team decided to re-air this illuminating episode about the harm that jail and the current bail system causes our community.   On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Chanel Rhymes, Director of Advocacy at the Northwest Community Bail Fund, joins Crystal Fincher to discuss our desperate need for bail reform. The NCBF is dedicated to ending cash bail and pretrial detention in Washington state. They do advocacy for reform, court watching to hold the system accountable, and they raise funds to provide bail for people who can't afford it on their own. Chanel explains the difficulties that jailing people prior to a conviction causes for people before they're even convicted of a crime, and dispels criticisms of bail funds as being dangerous for the community, rather than being a correction against systemic inequality. Crystal and Chanel also breakdown recent data on bail reform that shows that bail reform and eliminating pretrial detention for misdemeanors actually reduces crime in the long run, and doesn't negatively impact whether people show up to court. You can find information on the Northwest Community Bail Fund and resources for its court watching program in the links below. Chanel Rhymes Chanel Rhymes is the Director of Advocacy for the Northwest Community Bail Fund. Prior to joining the Northwest Community Bail fund, Chanel served as the Court Program Analyst for the Washington Supreme Court Minority and Justice Commission, executing the mission of ensuring that all courts in the state of Washington remain free of bias so that justice might be adjudicated in a neutral and fair manner. Previously, she was a Program Manager for the Freedom Education Project of Puget Sound where she developed and coordinated college courses for women seeking to attain their AA degrees while incarcerated at the Washington Correction Center for Women.   Chanel has worked with the Council of State Governments Justice Center, supporting their work on national criminal justice reform. She also has legislative experience as a Political Field Organizer and as a Legislative Liaison for the Washington Student Association, where she lobbied for the interests of students in higher education around issues of affordability, administration transparency, and accessibility. Chnel was raised in Tacoma, Washington, and received her BA from Evergreen State College with a focus in Law and Government Policy. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii, find the Northwest Community Bail Fund on Twitter at @NWCBailFund.   Resources Northwest Community Bail Fund website   NCBF - Court Watch Resources and sign-up   “The Effects of Misdemeanor Bail Reform” from Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice   “No More Police: A Case for Abolition” by Mariame Kaba & Andrea J. Ritchie   Washington state court's Criminal Rule 3.2   “A Seattle man began the night in crisis. Then, a sudden death in restraint” by Sydney Brownstone and Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “In a Sign of Worsening Conditions, Understaffed King County Jail Has Lacked Water for a Week” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Public Defenders Union Joins Jail Guards' Call to Address COVID Crisis” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On the show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm very excited about this show, where we get to talk with Chanel Rhymes, who is the director of advocacy at Northwest Community Bail Fund. Thank you so much for joining us. [00:00:51] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you for having me. I'm really excited to be here. [00:00:54] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you on. Have been a follower of the organization for quite some time. Obviously, this has been a topic across the country, and really globally. We're behind a lot of the globe on this. But in our country, a topic especially in the past few years, and looking at just what we're doing in terms of our criminal legal system, all of the challenges within it, and what can be done to make our communities more safe, keep our communities more safe, and really move towards a world and communities where we meet basic needs and we don't choose punishment over healing injustice. So I guess starting out, can you tell me just what the Northwest Community Bail Fund is and does, and what brought you to this work? [00:01:46] Chanel Rhymes: The Northwest Community Bail Fund is a nonprofit organization. We post bail for those during pre-trial detention. A lot of folks cannot afford to access the services of a bail bond agency, whether they don't have the means or collateral, so we are here to fill in those gaps. Ultimately we would hope to see an end to pre-trial detention and cash bail, but, because we know that is gonna take time, in the meantime we work to reduce harm. So we post bail as well as just, make sure that the community is not harmed and folks can fight their cases from a position of freedom, which they're entitled to through the constitution and the Washington state constitution. [00:02:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. [00:02:34] Chanel Rhymes: I myself came to this work in- I've been doing criminal justice reform work for a long- or, excuse me, criminal punishment reform work, for a long time. I, myself, am formally incarcerated. I am very passionate about those that have done their time and served their time be- the opportunity to go back into society and be a contributing member. I personally believe, though, that we need to stop trying to fix things after and start things from the beginning. Kind of like the, the babies in the river. I'm not gonna keep taking the babies out. I'd rather let's not put the babies in. So I'm trying to, we, myself and our organization, is trying to work to so that folks are just not incarcerated. And a lot of times folks are incarcerated just because of not having means. [00:03:25] Crystal Fincher: And this is such an important conversation. One, just as we talk about right now, we're sitting here in the midst of a crisis as defined by our public defenders, staff at jails. We had a historic letter earlier this year where both public defenders and corrections officers are saying, "hey, we can't handle the population here at the King County jail. It's unsafe. It's beyond what we can tolerate." And I don't think a lot of people realize that a lot of people who are in jail have not been convicted of anything. This is a pre-trial detention. They've not been sentenced. They're not serving a crime. They've not been found guilty of anything. It is simply because of a financial reason that they are sitting in jail and all of the challenges that, that presents. What does it mean and what kind of challenges does it pose when we detain people before their trials? [00:04:25] Chanel Rhymes: Oh, plethora. You could risk losing your housing. You can lose your children, custody of your children. You can lose your employment. And with all that comes, a rippling effect of other things, whether that be financial instability, just the trauma itself of going to jail. A lot of people that, say "lock them up," or "they just need to go to jail," never seen the inside of a jail. It's one of the most horrific places. On top of, with us being in a pandemic, you could potentially die, ultimately, from sitting in jail because there are still COVID outbreaks in jails every week. And so ultimately you could lose your life for something you haven't even been convicted of yet. And that's no way to bake it. That's not the way our system is designed. It's not supposed to be set up that way. Or at least they say that. [00:05:24] Crystal Fincher: At least they say that. It is certainly not what we've been sold. And so it's such a challenge. It is very destabilizing. And even in the case that someone does wind up pleading guilty or serving time, we're relying on them having the means to pay whatever fines they're going to be charged to do all that. And so if they don't have a job, if they have lost, as a result of being detained, all of the ability to fulfill the terms of whatever punishment they've been handed, that's a challenge in and of itself. And the bottom line is, a lot of people think putting people in jail makes us safer. If we didn't have this, they would be out committing crimes. And every now and then there's a case that gets publicized where they say, see, look, this is- bail reform caused this. Is that the case? [00:06:24] Chanel Rhymes: It's not the case. Number one, judges decide what bail is. Number two folks have a constitutional right to bail. The purpose of bail - and our Washington Supreme Court has said this - the state is not in the primary interest of collecting bail bond forfeitures. It is more concerned with folks showing up to court. That is what the purpose is. That, whether somebody is released or not, does not make us safer. There are tons of people who are arrested for violent crimes and don't spend a day in jail because they have the means to bail themselves out. Where are the folks asking about them? I think it's very interesting that bail reform and, nonprofits, people who don't make money off of this business, are the ones under the microscope, but yet bail bond agencies make millions of dollars every day bailing people out that sometimes do go on to commit new crimes. We don't hear about those in the news. We only hear about the less fortunate, which is those folks that are coming to a community bail fund or, mutual aid fund, and it's because we demonize poverty in this society. And it's just bizarre to me, in a sense, that we've gotten to this point. As if folks don't understand that wages have been stagnant for 40 years. The cost of living is going up. People can't make it can't survive. And so putting them in jail, and then if they are convicted or plead guilty just to get out, they now have a criminal conviction. So then that creates barriers to getting employment. And the other thing that you need, housing, that is the first, one of the major things that disqualifies most folks for housing, is a criminal conviction. So if we're also criminalizing homelessness, locking people up, then convicting them, and then they get out and they can't rent anywhere, and then we're like, "why are you homeless?" We are just creating this cycle and it's really a cycle of abuse. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and one really has to ask is the offense that people really are in jail for whatever they've been accused of, or is it just that they're poor and can't afford bail? And even just the issue of bail overall, for some reason, we have landed in a place where we think that a dollar amount is indicative of whether or not someone is in danger or is safe regardless of what they have been accused of, regardless of what kind of flight risk someone may be deemed to be. Hey, if you have enough money to, if you're rich, and and you can pay for whatever, it really doesn't matter. You're not gonna be in jail. And, we have seen several examples of people who are, just a small misdemeanor accusation which, often can result in dropped charges overall for lack of evidence, for just not being worth it to pursue in the system, yet they have been in jail and have experienced, like you talked about, the loss of job, the loss of housing, and that being destabilizing. And in fact that increasing the chance that someone is likely to be involved in their criminal legal system in the future, as opposed to if they were able to maintain their connections in community. And then also on the back end, just about everyone we're sending into jail is going to come out on the other end. So don't we have an interest in making sure that we are doing all we can to set people up for success and to not drop them into another pit, which it seems this just sets up people to do. What do you tell people when they're like, "it's there to make sure they come back and if they don't have bail, then they won't come back. So bail is necessary and if they can't afford it, then you know, they could just leave and never come back anyway?" what do you tell people who just say bail is necessary to get people to show up? [00:10:48] Chanel Rhymes: They can find us anywhere. The world we live in now, if they wanna find you, they really can find you. But, ultimately, most people do wanna get this resolved. Nobody wants this hanging over their head. A lot of times people don't show up, not on purpose. People, don't FTA, or Failure to Appear, on purpose. Life happens. There's life circumstance. Also, too, people wanna get it taken care of because they probably didn't do it. People aren't really decking and dodging. I will add though that even if we have a lot of folks saying people they need to go to jail or they need to do this, a misdemeanor? It's max fine, like 90 days in jail. So I think too, people have a misconception of what our punishments, our sentencing structure is, and the difference between jail and the difference between prison, and misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies. Even with our gross misdemeanor, the max jail time is a year, up to a year, but after that, okay, they serve their time, they're back out, what are we going to do to help folks? What I tell people is how is this solving anything? Why would you want your tax dollars just to be wasted to keep doing this? And wouldn't you want your tax dollars to be used to help people. So they're not back in this situation? The amount of money that we spend on criminal punishment and police is just ridiculous when you compare it to what we spend on education. So if we really wanted to make changes, we would be investing our money in education, healthcare, mental healthcare, reproductive rights, all of those things. Never in our 40 years of plus doing this whole drug war or anything, have cops, police, arrest helped make us any safer or do any type of harm reduction. There's tons of studies out there that show when you reinvest that many within the community and provide people's services, recidivism goes down. I think it's odd that we just keep having to have this conversation over and over again, because we obviously know what's not working, but we are very, afraid to try what some people or some municipalities and governments have done that work. [00:13:11] Crystal: Well. And it feels like, for people who've looked into this, for the people who are the loudest on this issue on either side, they do know what the data says. They do know that the evidence shows conclusively, repeatedly - there was just a new study that came out and reiterated this just last month - that bail reform, not relying on bail and releasing people pre-trial, not subjecting them to all of the harms that result from that, doesn't hurt people appearing in court over people who have been detained, doesn't hurt their likelihood of committing a crime again, over people who have been in bail. So there is actually no advantage safety-wise. There's no advantage in the court system. It's not, "hey, a lot of people were failing to appear - weren't failing to appear - now they are with bail reform. It is actually the opposite. This is working to keep people safer. This is working to help people show up and we are not contending with how expensive this is to us as a society financially and in terms of just our safety and our health within the community. My goodness, courts are expensive to run and administer. Prisons and jails are so expensive to run and administer. All of the staff, all of everything required to do that is so costly. We're sitting here talking about upcoming budget shortfalls here in, the city of Seattle, throughout the state in different cities, yet when you look at the city's budget, such a huge percentage of it and their county's budget, such a huge percentage is dedicated to locking people up. And especially pre-trial, what benefit are we getting out of it? Why do you think people are so resistant to saying, "wow. Number one, we aren't getting the results that we want from our current system. It would actually save us money that we could invest in areas that we all know need it." Yet, lots of people still aren't there. Why do you think that is? [00:15:22] Chanel Rhymes: Because people are being misinformed, and fear-mongered by their local news and reporters, who I'm shocked at the things that they write and put out. And it's clear that a lot of reporters locally here have no clue about criminal law or criminal procedure. They are flat out lying to the public. And so then folks see that on TV, they read it in their newspapers, they read it online and they think that the sky is falling. Everything is super dangerous. I also think poverty is a lot more visible now. So people, their senses seem to think "oh, it's bad, it's more." And it's no, just more people are hurting and you're seeing it more. It's not hidden. It's coming into your neighborhoods. I truly believe it's miseducation, misinformation, and 30 years of watching Law and Order that people think they know the system and how things work. I blame our media to be quite honest, because they're just not being truthful. And most of the information that, it seems to me, that they're getting are coming either straight from prosecutors or straight from police. They are refusing to talk to anybody from the other side. [00:16:42] Crystal Fincher: And even, not from either, quote unquote side, there are actual experts on crime. They're called criminologists. We have lots of them at our wonderful universities, research universities here in the area, who are able to speak on what the evidence and research shows is and is not effective and useful and working in terms of keeping people safe, keeping people from committing crimes. And over again, they are coming up with data that says detaining people pre-trial just because they cannot afford to get out of jail does not keep us safer. Does not do anything to help our system to help reduce crime. It just doesn't do that. In fact if it had, if it has, any effect, it's the opposite effect. It actually makes outcomes worse. It makes people more likely to do that because they have been made more unstable and put in a more precarious position because of that. So if you were to talk to a lot of the local media, what would you advise that they do? [00:17:53] Chanel Rhymes: Educate themselves on the way that criminal law, that criminal procedure, works before just going with conjecture and their feelings and how they feel. There are laws, there are court rules, reasons why things are done. Ultimately too, the fact that they're saying, "okay, so we're holding people because they can't afford it." If they were so dangerous, no bail would be set. Obviously, a bail has been set, so that judge has deemed them safe enough to go back into the community once they pay that money. So you can't have it both ways either, it's completely they're there because they're a danger or is it really they're there because they can't afford it? Because if they were such a danger, then why is there a dollar amount that they could pay that says they're not dangerous? It just doesn't make any sense. I mean the argument of it makes us safer- it just doesn't. And I just think we've just been recycling the same thing over and over again. And then also, too, people, the internet, your phone, every social media, people are getting lots of just different images and things like things are horrible. "Seattle is dying, oh my gosh, they've closed my Starbucks." And it's really like people are homeless and hungry and that's, what's really- The fact that too, we are still within a pandemic and we have a lot of people in charge that want folks to just keep on going just out. "No, everything's fine." people are still financially hurting. We also hear a lot about, I'll just say that, media's writing a lot about retail. Nobody writes about wage theft. More money is stolen in wages than it is in deodorant. What does that tell you? I'm reading a police report and somebody is charged with stealing body wash, deodorant, razors. They're trying to survive. Those are essential items. Like we need to look at that. Like what services can we get that person so they don't have to steal the basic needs just to be a human and live in this society? [00:20:12] Crystal Fincher: I'm with you, I'm with you. So as we look moving forward, right now, you and Northwest Community Bail Fund are filling in this gap in our current system. Obviously there's a lot of changes that would be more effective if we made them. In terms of bail, what is it that you would like to see changed about our current system? Would you like to move to a system where judges just make the decision as they have in some other localities across the country? "Hey we're not really doing bail. We are making the determination about whether we feel this person is a flight risk or a threat to society. And if yes, we're detaining them and if, no, we're not." And throwing the idea of bail out the window in lieu of that? Or something different? What would you like to see in terms of bail in the system we're in? [00:21:10] Chanel Rhymes: There should be no bail. There should be no pre-trial detention. Folks are innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason for anybody to be caged. That's what they are, is caged. Before they have been convicted by a judge or jury of their peers. They've just been accused. We should be moving completely away from that. I would say, even just to start, we could have judges actually, follow court rule 3.2, which says you need to use the least restrictive means to release people. So that would be a start. We do court watching in courts around the area, particularly Seattle Municipal Court. We watch arraignment hearings. We, we take, track, demographic data, race, perceived age, age, date of birth. But we also track if court rule 3.2 is brought up by judges, by the prosecutor, or by the defense. And we recently had our data analyzed and it was only 13% in all of the cases that we had listened to that it was brought up. That's a very low number for a court rule to not even be mentioned during arraignment. And that has to do with whether folks are, public safety issue or, the means to pay to get out. So I think one, first thing is if y'all going, institute these rules and create these policies, you should follow them first. You're not even following your own policies, so can you accurately say if it's working or not? I don't think so, but ultimately it's a no. I'm an abolitionist. Get rid of them all. I just got my no more police book. I just started on that. This, it's not working. All we're doing is harming people and it's not sustainable and it costs too much. We could be investing those dollars in so many other ways that would actually give us a better return on investment because all we're doing is churning out more debt, ultimately, because if they can't get a job, they can't get housed, we're still gonna end up having to pay for it another way. [00:23:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. We're paying for it no matter what, just depends on whether it's an investment that's gonna yield a return later on. If we're dealing in, education and health and mental health and behavioral health support and treatment that do yield benefits for our entire community or whether we are dealing in the aftermath of pain and harm and paying to keep people in prison and incarcerated, which is just so terribly expensive and costly financially, and to our community, to that person, to the community, to everyone involved. What would you say to the people who- Obviously we always hear examples of violent crimes, horrible crimes, some horrible crimes happen that should never happen. And they see what someone has been accused of. They hear evidence against them and they're like, "that person is not safe on the street." And say, "we're afraid of what can happen. That they're a danger to society and based on what they've done, they should be detained." What do you say to people in that circumstance? [00:24:50] Chanel Rhymes: You have no proof that evidence is actually evidence that is true, or that can convict him. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not public opinion. There's a process that you go through during criminal procedure where the judge gets to decide what evidence gets to come in and what doesn't. We don't just get to decide oh, that's true. That piece of evidence that the reporters said right there is true. Also, we all know police lie all the time. We're just gonna take the word of police because that's who most reporters are getting their information from, they're just reading it from police reports and statements or their, communications officer or whoever it may be. So how is it that untrained people in law, just the regular general public would be able to determine who's safe and who's not? I also think if a judge has set bail, who are you to say that, better than that judge about the case? I don't understand that. Either we believe in these systems and y'all want these systems to do their job, or y'all just want to do it out in the public. Are we going back to that? Where we just doing the public, in the public square, and then everybody we decide how things go? No. To me, it's just bizarre that somebody be like this is what happened. You really don't know that's just what it was reported. People have to be convicted in a court, not in public opinion, it's just not the way it works. [00:26:24] Crystal Fincher: Which is true. And once again, this most recent study in Houston, which backs up prior studies, under consent decree where more people had to be released within 24 hours of a misdemeanor arrest, there was a 6% decrease in new prosecutions over the three years that followed that they followed those defendants. They said, "okay, everybody's saying we need to see whether or not people, are really gonna show up. We need to see whether you letting people out is really going to, make things safer as these people claim, let's follow these defendants. Let's follow these people." Over a period of years, not even beyond, not even stopping at, okay this one case, their current case was adjudicated, whatever happened, they went beyond. Eliminating bail, taking that out as a factor, releasing them and not detaining them simply because they can't afford bail, resulted in a decrease over the existing system. Meaning that locking people up made it more likely that someone was going to commit a crime again. Made it more likely that things would be less safe in our community. I'm for what makes people more. We talk about all of these things. A lot of it is punishment related. And I think in so many of these conversations, we have to decide whether we are going to prioritize punishing people or whether we're gonna prioritize keeping our community safe, because they really are at odds. And punishment is not working for us, any of us, and it's really expensive. It is so harmful to the person involved, it's harmful to the community and it's so costly. And we talk about funding for jails. We talk about funding for police. There is only a certain amount of money in the whole bucket. So if we're giving more to one area, we're taking it from somewhere else or preventing it from being invested in somewhere else. And I'm sure everyone listening to this thinks, "hey, we need, we do need more behavioral health support. We do need more substance use disorder. Treatment and accessibility and availability. We do need to make sure people have access to these things without having to be involved in the criminal legal system to get clean or to get healthy." And so it's just such an important issue and I thank you for just being vocal about this. For helping people in this organization and doing something that is making our community safer. Really appreciate it. If people want to learn more or to get involved or donate to the Northwest Community Bail Fund, how can they do that? [00:29:11] Chanel Rhymes: You can go to our website, which is N-W- C-O-M-B-A-I-L-F-U-N-D.org So nwcombailfund.org. You can follow us on Twitter and Instagram. I'm so grateful to have this conversation with you and inviting me on to talk about the organization that I dearly love, and we truly do wanna make our community safer and we wanna stop harming folks. [00:29:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Wanna stop harming folks. One thing that I do have to mention: I saw a report that you produced, and I feel like this was last year at some time now. You're not only doing this work, but you are, as an organization, being accountable, being transparent about the activity that's going on. You are showing results for what you're doing in a way that goes be above and beyond a number of others that I've seen. I appreciate that transparency in this organization. And then also wanted to mention, you brought up your court watching, also, earlier, which is such a useful and valuable tool. And just enlightening and informative because, to your point, lots of people don't know what happens in court. People have very limited experience, maybe someone contests a parking ticket or a speeding ticket or something. Lots of people have never stepped foot in one. And so have this idea from TV shows what it's like. It's nothing like what on TV shows. And so I sincerely appreciate that too. We're gonna link those court watching resources in the show notes, also for people to be able to access and follow. [00:31:05] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you. That is also available on our website, we're always looking for more court Watchers. We really need folks to go in person to courts. Seattle Municipal Court and Tacoma Municipal Court offer virtual courts so people can actually court watch from the comfort of their own home. If you're interested in court watching with us, please go to our website and fill out an interest form. [00:31:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for all of your information today, for what you do. It's been a pleasure to have you on Chanel. [00:31:31] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you. [00:31:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you all for listening to Hacks and Wonks. The Producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, our Assistant Producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks, and you can follow me at @finchfrii spelled F I N C H F R I I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.