One can get election results at virtually any local outlet, but since you rightly eschew all news sources besides Seattle Transit Blog, here’s the stuff you won’t get anywhere else. Candidates we endorsed in bold.

I-976: Yes (55%) leads No (45%) statewide.

King County District 2: Zahilay leads Gossett 62-37

King County District 4: Kohl-Welles beats Doerr 73-26.

King County District 6: Balducci over Hirt 77-23.

King County District 8: McDermott over Neher 82-17.

Seattle District 1: Herbold 51, Tavel 48

Seattle District 2: Morales 56, Solomon 43

Seattle District 3: Orion 54, Sawant 46

Seattle District 4: Pedersen 58, Scott 42

Seattle District 5: Juarez 57, Sattler 42

Seattle District 6: Strauss 52, Wills 47

Seattle District 7: Pugel 50, Lewis 49

Bellevue. 3rd: Barksdale 62, Walter 38. 7th: Robertson 63, Bible 36

Bothell. 2nd: Henderson 52, Thompson 48. 4th: McNeal 63, Seymour 37

Kirkland. 5th: Black 68, Morgan 31. 6th: Falcone 75, Hamilton 25.

Mercer Island. 1st: Thompson 51, Rosenbaum 49. 3rd: Welker 51, Hanlon 49. 4th: Anderl 57, Allcorn 43. 5th: Reynolds 52, Cartright 48.

Redmond. Mayor: Birney 59, Fields 40. 5th: Kritzer 71, Zakhareyev 29.

Will the small leads hold as more ballots trickle in? Your guess is as good as ours!

While not all the votes are counted, it’s clear that these results confirm that all my existing political convictions are correct.

We’ll have more on I-976 tomorrow. Comment away!

27 Replies to “Election results”

  1. So when does the legal battle against I-976 start? How does this work? Does the Secretary of State initiate it? I read a document about the cost of implementation, but the state apparently doesn’t do the research about whether implementing it is actually legal. Which makes sense – that should be up to the people creating the initiative.

    1. I fail to understand why the court challenges can’t happen until a measure passes. If it’s unconstitutional, it should have been thrown out before it even appeared on the ballot.

      1. No, a court can’t adjudicate an issue if no one has been harmed. Judges are not supposed to make law. You have to have a plaintiff and defendant.
        The adversarial position is integral to our legal system. The fix is to change our States’s initiative/referendum system so that some horse’s ass can’t make a career out of running repeated campaigns on the same issue.

        FWIW, I vote no on replacing any of the taxes the legislature enacted. I may disagree with them. (sometimes strongly) but that’s how the sausage is made. Somehow these part time employees have to figure out how to fund the State. If you don’t like how it was done then run for office. All of the “no” on tax votes should have to have an alternative funding provision attached. That would eliminate 100% of these stupid election decisions.

    2. Once the votes have been counted and the initiative passes (highly likely at this point, but not quite guaranteed), the State AG would be the one to start the legal contest. This allows the state to be the plaintiff, giving them additional legal options to use in the case.

      1. Actually the state is the defendant. Other agencies the plaintiff. King county and Seattle both have indicated that legal action is likely. The transit union could also take action. But the state is put in the bad spot of defending this cruel measure.

  2. I was also hoping for a last-minute Trump endorsement of I-976 to help mobilize the “no” campaign. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

  3. Time for the Leg to repeal the sales tax exemption on motor fuel. The big whine was “It’s too much all at once!”

    So just get it a little at a time all year long.

    Plus, it ‘s at a weak Carbon tax. The folks with guzzlers will pay more. Yes, some may indeed be poor and driving 1979 Chevelles. But most of the guzzlers on the road are modern performance “pony cars” or Monster Trucks.

    Let the Carbon hogs pay!

    1. I certainly agree that would help! I worry though that there’s a lot of people that are just driving older cars, that can’t afford to live near transit, and can’t afford to live closer to their employment that would bear a lot of the negative effects of this. Those with money will just keep doing what they’re doing. Those barely making it may not be able to make when the cost of their commute becomes unbareable.

      I’m really looking for a solution for this, because I seriously come up empty time and time again!

    2. “pony cars” full-size SUV’s and Monster Trucks…

      I agree that many poor people are driving old cars, but they’re old Japanese and German cars and therefore fairly cheap to drive, if not to maintain [the German-made ones]. The old American guzzlers have mostly been recycled twice by now.

  4. Assuming Sawant loses tonight the entire current Seattle council committee on Sustainability and Transportation will be gone.

    O’ Brien (Chair)
    Pacheco (Vice Chair)
    Sawant (Member)
    Harrell (Alternative)

    I couldn’t imagine anything worse than “prioritize parking” Pedersen having any involvement in the committee.

    I would be interested in hearing who STB would like to see in the chair and vice chair roles.

  5. Current I-976 results For the three Sound Transit counties: (Yes%/No%)
    Snohomish: (61.7/38.3)
    King: (44/56)
    Pierce: (67.6/32.4)

  6. We need to figure out ASAP how to prevent Seattle’s ST3 projects from being scaled back. The resounding NO in Pierce and SnoCo demonstrates that regardless of what happens with 976 there needs to be a major scale back in those areas. But we have to find a way through state and local officials to save ST3 in Seattle.

    1. The MVET is roughly proportional to total revenue in each subarea, so I’m not sure how you’d do that without breaking subarea equity. Certainly can’t in a way that gets enough suburban votes to pass the board.

      The bright spot is that pointless Ballard and West Seattle tunnels are dead.

      1. I take that back, MVET is a significantly lower share in North King/Seattle. Still, can’t see any enthusiasm for gold plating Seattle projects while the spine is delayed.

      2. Tell the Port of Seattle that the Ballard tunnel is dead. I think their response would be “See you in court”– and they could “Missing Link” this thing to death.

      3. Given that the public sentiment in the “spine” counties seems to be roughly 2:1 against paying for said spine, I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that this should be a higher priority than building infrastructure where the people are mostly in favor of paying for it.

        Honestly if it comes down to a choice between watering the Seattle part of ST3 down or cancelling it altogether, I might be inclined to cancel it and push for a Seattle-only measure. Unequal taxation between the subareas (keeping the principle that taxes raised in each subarea should be spent for that subarea’s benefit) would also be worth considering.

      4. I came to that conclusion by looking at the makeup of the ST Board. Seattle is outvoted by the suburbs. The spine is destiny, has been since 1996.

      5. I don’t think the tunnel was in play in West Seattle even if I-976 had been voted down due to the lack of a much needed funding plan, for it was a serious budget buster.

        The sooner the legal challenge to this initiative, the better.

  7. They’ll compromise with the port on a high bridge at 14th. Doesn’t gore the port’s ox nearly as much as the 15th alternatives.

    1. It will more probably be a mid-level opening bridge on 14th. That’s almost certainly cheaper than bridging the half-again-as-long width of the Ship Canal and Fishermen’s Terminal at 15th AND bulldozing a significant strip through the blocks between Shilshole and 53rd west of 15th.

      You can also say “Good-bye” to Everett. SnoHoCo will get their service to “Pain” [sic] Field, but that will be the terminal until an “ST4”, if ever. Look for the Sounder extension to Dupont in ST4 and the “Tacoma Link Extension” to TCC as well.

      1. I dunno, the port and the FTA seem pretty big on avoiding in-water construction. High bridge at 14th built as a cable stayed span like the skytrain bridge over the Fraser wouldn’t require any in-water work.

      2. That’s true, but it’s $100 million more than what Sound Transit no longer has. If this were a replacement for the existing Ballard Bridge, you’d hear no whingeing about “in water construction”.

        A movable bridge means the approaches can be shorter for the same grade. That makes for less visual intrusion.

        I agree that a high bridge is more reliable operationally. But some value engineering is needed.

  8. the spine could be bus in the outer segments during a long interim period. a great incentive to toll the limited access highways.

  9. The city council races aren’t (currently) as bad as I was worried they’d be, but I am disappointed that Pedersen appears to be on the way to winning D4.

    I think it would help urbanists if we moved our mayoral and city council elections to presidential election years- we’d get more engagement, especially from younger voters. I’d also like us to move to some kind of ranked-choice voting, at least for the primary election.

  10. The one takeaway I have from this election. We need to fix how the initiative system works in the state so it can’t continue to be abused by people like Eyeman to better ram initiatives through repeatedly on the same topic or question and then get thrown out of court for not following the state law on how initiatives are supposed to be formatted.

Comments are closed.