You can drop off your ballot at a box on the north side of Schmitz Hall, a couple blocks south and one block east of U-District Station, among other places, by 8 pm today / map by King County Elections Dept

It may have snuck up on you, but today is election day. Ballots are due in drop boxes by 8 pm sharp.

There are a lot of drop boxes, including several very close to 1 Line stations. There are also a few Vote Centers where you can register to vote if you have not already, and vote privately on one of the accessible electronic voting machines.

STB did not do an endorsement process this time, but there are plenty of other groups that did, including:

… and many others. That’s probably more than you have time to read today. 8 pm sharp. Get your ballot in.

28 Replies to “Did you remember to vote?”

  1. Ballard drop box stuff full at 6pm yesterday! Seems like another box near the Greenwood library ought to be in the works for next election.

    1. I used Ballard after six; I did not notice it stuffed; several used it the few minutes I was there; there were also homeless about.

      1. Yeah, the location of the Ballard Ballot Box outside the Library and adjacent to the Commons means there have been unhoused folks congregating around the box as long as I’ve been putting ballots in that box. Since safety and homelessness is such a hot topic this year, it was kind of a salient reminder of what we’re voting on (again)

      2. Oh no! Homeless people outside a library, one of the few places they can access public restrooms and use the internet to try and access social services! The humanity!

    2. I dropped mine at Seattle Central at 5pm yesterday, and I was happy to see people one after another come up to drop theirs in. I read the election workers empty the bins hourly near election day.

  2. Yes.
    But thanks for the reminder anyway! For the first time ever, I undervoted my ballot and skipped the tax advisory items as voting on these has become an exercise in futility. Now I just need to sit back and wait to see who will serve as my elected representative in these exciting positions up for grabs:
    –Hospital District 2 Commissioner (2 positions)
    –Alderwood Water/Wastewater District Commissioner
    –Edmonds School District (2 positions, 1 unopposed)
    –South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue RFA Commissioner (2 positions)

    Yep, that’s the list this time around. I have no idea how I’m going to be able to sleep tonight.

    All snark aside, I second the OP’s nudge to do your part for our democratic process and get your ballots in on time.

    1. My father-in-law was a hospital commissioner in Jefferson Co. for many years. It is a very difficult and very important position, because in these rural areas many folks only have the hospital or its clinics for health care, including children, and unfortunately many don’t get regular preventative medicine, and/or have some bad habits. Money is always tight for a ruralish hospital with a high Medicaid/charity patient load.

      One of the real problems is getting qualified doctors and staff to work in a rural area. The rural hospitals like most hospitals make their money from child births and orthopedics for old folks on Medicare, but a cardiology unit is expensive and difficult to staff.

      Obamacare (my father-in-law is/was right of Attila the Hun) was a real boon because it incentivized — or forced — large hospitals like Swedish to partner with rural hospitals. This really helped standardized medical records, and large hospitals are much more sophisticated when it comes to billing and purchasing.

      When my father-in-law went with his fellow commissioners to Seattle to meet with the Swedish CEO they thought they would be treated like country bumpkins. Instead they were given the red carpet treatment, and of course the commissioners were blown away by Swedish Hosp. although many had treated there. It was a big help for their rural hospital, and one of the benefits is Swedish doctors liked the rural setting in Jefferson Co. so would do stints over there, especially during the summer when school was out. If they had to go to Seattle the records were already standardized and waiting.

      If you ever want an impossible and thankless but very important job, especially for the poor, run and serve as a hospital commissioner in a rural area. The joke in the family is serving as a hospital commissioner turned my father-in-law from a staunch conservative into a liberal, at least when it came to healthcare, and God forbid a single payor system. because one of the first things you learn with a rural hospital is it is single payor: Medicare or Medicaid.

    2. “I second the OP’s nudge to do your part for our democratic process and get your ballots in on time.”

      I try to get mine in at least a day or two before so that it’s included in the initial result count. If everybody did that the results would be more certain on election night.

  3. I had another mostly boring ballot. Although I was pleased to see a candidate for Kirkland City Council mention the need for better transit in his voters guide blurb.

    The advisory votes, I sometimes fill in “maintain” on all of them, sometimes, leave blank, depending on my mood. Even if there’s a tax I am personally at odds with, I will never bubble “repeal”, as doing so supports the advisory vote process, which is a waste of time, and by extension, Tim Eyman, who created it. I also can’t stand the stilted language “costing…for government spending”. If Tim Eyman is telling me to vote repeal on everything, I want to do the opposite to spite him.

    1. I wish the legislature would just man up and repeal it (which they can do, as it’s been far more than 2 years), as it’s nothing but a waste of paper. The ballot language is so stilted as to render the responses utterly meaningless. The only people who would be upset are Eymanesque Republicans who wouldn’t be voting for them anyway.

  4. LOL all of the Mountlake Terrace council positions were unopposed. I should run next time to give them some competition. A few SnoCo County positions of interest, though.

    I used to use the dropbox on 6TH Ave. S beside Uwajimaya in the ID, when I lived down there. Better option for those taking Link from the south.

    As far as SnoCo, I did notice there is a drop box at the Ash Way park and ride.

  5. I ended up voting a liberal slate except for Seattle attorney, because I didn’t want to support an “abolitionist” in that position. The Stranger said Davison was a “Trump Republican” but I wasn’t sure how true that was. I just hope she has a commitment to voting rights, because an ordinary Republican is tolerable but not one who would disenfranchise people or acquiesce to the authoritarian steamroller. I wasn’t sure how much difference even a bad city attorney could make in this. So I hope she rises to the occasion if elected.

    1. The New York Times ran an article yesterday about the Seattle Attorney race. They say that Ann Davison claims she voted for Joe Biden, which doesn’t sound like something a Trump Republican would say to me. I suspect the stranger is simply twisting things to scare people.

      My understanding is city attorney is not like state attorney general, fighting national politics in the courtroom, but someone more mundane, charged with simply enforcing laws against minor local crimes, such as shoplifting. If my assumption is correct, D or R shouldn’t really matter for an office like this, and it should probably be nonpartisan.

    2. It is nonpartisan, as all Seattle offices are. The Republican part is about her switching parties while in state office. The Trump part is about her doing it in the Trump era; that was the Stranger’s argument. Today I read something more, that she made a video for a Trump supporter who was later involved in January 6th. I had already voted by then, and the article still didn’t clear up how much she personally supports those positions.

      1. I wouldn’t call her a Trump Republican. I would call her a Nixon Republican. If you think that is an exaggeration, just look at her website. It is all law and order. It starts with statistics on murder (a felony) when she knows damn well that the job doesn’t involve that.

        Speaking of which, her opponent actually describes what the job mostly entails: While the city attorney is in charge of prosecuting misdemeanors, the main job is to act as the attorney for the city. This means, for example, suing Tim Eyman or defending the city’s right to put up tiny house villages. Here is a rundown from 2020 (

        Anyway, The New York Times covers it quite well: Neither candidate looks very smart to me. While Thomas-Kennedy is being called a radical for sending out a few inappropriate tweets, I find Davison’s position just as extreme. She was part of the WalkAway campaign and joined conservative efforts to repeal a sex-education law. These weren’t momentary lapses of judgement, made by a person without an official voice. These were the attempts of someone trying to join forces with the radical, reactionary right, in an attempt to gain political power. Does she honestly feel that way, or was this just politics? Does it matter?

        Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with a competent, if overzealous public defender over a less intelligent Nixon wannabe any day. But like many people, I wish we had a third choice.

      2. I think RossB basically nailed it. (And thank you for clarifying my question about whether a Republican city attorney could have unintended consequences on areas unrelated to prosecuting crimes).

        Is it possible to just write in the incumbent who lost the primary?

      3. Ross, I’m not sure if either challenger candidate seriously expected to make it through the primary. If I remember correctly, Holmes only started really campaigning when the first polls came out that it was going to be close to a three-way split, but by that time, enough people were willing to throw their votes at the extreme ends of the spectrum that we’re now stuck with the binary choice. If, instead of primaries, we had a general ranked-choice vote, Holmes would have breezed to victory between the three.

        It’s important to acknowledge that both candidates have significant problems, and based on the polling, it seemed that the 30% who voted for Holmes in the primary were having trouble deciding which candidates’ problems are worse. It will certainly be an interesting election – I know I’ll be refreshing the Election Results page at 8:15.

      4. “Is it possible to just write in the incumbent who lost the primary?’

        I didn’t think of that! Yes, there’s always a write-in space.

      5. Let’s see, under Holmes Seattle lost Value Village and Union Gospel Mission. Mean while, illegally parking RVs was considered as homesteading. Eventually even most left leaning progressives figure it out. What was Holmes standout success?

      6. I believe that write-in General Election votes for defeated Primary candidates are not counted.

      7. Sore loser law

        If a candidate loses a race in the Primary, either as a regular candidate printed on the ballot or as a declared write-in, that candidate cannot file in the General Election as a write-in candidate for the same race. RCW 29A.24.311 & RCW 29A.60.021

        “Write-in candidates must file a declaration to have votes tallied for a race.”

        Bottom line, if you wrote in Holmes you were disenfranchised.

  6. RossB, of course we had a third choice; Pete Holmes lost in the Primary. Primaries are often important.

  7. Here is a link to the Seattle City Attorney Criminal Division website:

    “Mission: The City Attorney’s Office strives to promote Seattle communities that are safe, healthy, empowered, and thriving.”

    “The Criminal Division works to:

    “Ensure respect for and compliance with criminal municipal ordinances by holding offenders accountable through fair and effective prosecution and enforcement.

    “Advocate on behalf of crime victims to ensure the preservation of their rights to personal safety, restitution, and participation in the criminal justice process.

    “Prevent crime and improve the quality of life in Seattle’s neighborhoods by working proactively with residents, business owners, police, and other agencies to identify and resolve community problems.

    “Educate and advise the public and city departments on criminal justice issues and trends, and develop policies relating to the management of the criminal justice system including jail administration, sentencing guidelines, diversion programs, and municipal court procedures.

    “To accomplish this work, division attorneys and staff are divided into:

    “The Domestic Violence Unit prosecutes and negotiates domestic violence and child abuse matters with the assistance of victim advocates;

    “Review and Filing Unit prosecutors make all filing decisions within the office;
    The Trial Team Unit handles all non-domestic violence negotiations, trials, motions, review and restitution hearing;

    “Specialty Court Unit prosecutors represent the City in the Mental Health Court, Veterans Treatment Court, and administer the Young Adult Pre-Filing Diversion Program in partnership with Choose 180.

    “The Prosecution Support Team assists prosecutors during all stages of prosecution by managing discovery and assisting with trial preparation and victim/witness contact; and

    “The Case Preparation Unit prepares files along with pleadings and provides prosecutors with information for various court hearings.

    “The Criminal Division helps people who are crime victims or witnesses through the criminal justice process. Prosecutor support staff (including paralegals, assistant paralegals and Criminal Division paralegal interns and volunteers) perform victim and witness contact about the incident. In the matter of a crime involving domestic violence, a victim’s advocate is assigned for the victim and they communicate with the victim.”

    It looks to me like a very big part of the Seattle City Attorney’s Office is to prosecute crime and represent the victims of crime, who unfortunately are disproportionally women and children, and poor.

    I think too many — including on this blog — don’t quite understand crime is about the harm to victims, and there are victims, and crime destroys a community. I think the criminal division gets the connection between crime, safety, neighborhoods, business, and quality of life, and prosecution.

    The city attorney is not an aid to the mayor. First and foremost they are a prosecutor, and I don’t see how someone would vote for city attorney someone who has publicly argued for eliminating prosecution of misdemeanors in Seattle, and tweeted out stuff that would get you fired from any law firm in Seattle, and of course not surprisingly no top firm in Seattle would hire these two.

    I agree with Ross Seattle has many lawyers more qualified than these two, but being city attorney in Seattle is a no win job, so you get the quality of candidates you deserve.

    1. Sure. But you’re also ignoring the department’s Civil Division.

      “The City Attorney heads the Law Department and is responsible for supervising all City litigation. In addition, the City Attorney supervises a staff of Assistant City Attorneys who provide legal advice and assistance to the City’s management and prosecute violations of City ordinances.”


      “The Civil Division represents the City in lawsuits and advises City officials as they develop programs, projects, policies, and legislation. The sections within the Civil Division are torts (claims), governmental affairs, land use, environmental protection, labor and employment, contracts/utilities, and regulatory enforcement and economic justice.”

      1. Dan obviously knows about the Civil Division (and likely knows that its budget is almost twice that of the Criminal Division), but is either simply ignorant of the roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney, or is arguing in bad faith about the relative abilities of either candidate to do the job. I think it’s obvious that both candidates have major problems (Ann Davidson has no proven ability to practice law and appears to have worked mostly as an arbitrator; NTK had the audacity to be vocally passionate about social justice and aggressively anti-police during massive anti-police protests which likely forced her retirement from public defense), but it’s an easy decision if you care about the City Attorney’s ability and interest in defending the City’s policies.

      2. From the Seattle SomeTimes:

        Thomas-Kennedy’s rhetoric and approach are so concerning that former Democratic Govs. Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke, as well as 30 retired judges — including former state Supreme Court justices Bobbe Bridge and Phil Talmadge — have stepped up to endorse Davison. </blockquote.
        Pretty much tells you what a left wingnut NTG is. For an avowed R to win in Seattle the alternative has to be really really bad. What else this shows is how bad Pete Holmes was. If he had any idea of running for KC Exec or Governor this should be a reality check.

Comments are closed.