This morning, the King County Council is accepting public comment on Ordinance 2022–0180, which, if approved, would give voters in Washington State’s largest county the opportunity to vote on a charter amendment this autumn that would move elections for the offices of Executive, Assessor, Elections Director, and County Council to even-numbered years, when voters already elect the Prosecuting Attorney and decide contested races for Superior Court judgeships.
Conceived by NPI and introduced by Council Chair Claudia Balducci, the amendment would result in all county positions being elected in midterm or presidential cycles by 2028, when turnout is usually the highest and most diverse.
Elections for positions normally contested the year after a midterm cycle would move to midterm cycles, while positions contested the year after a presidential cycle would move to presidential cycles. The realignment would be accomplished by electing all of the positions now contested in odd-numbered years to three year terms once, and thereafter to four-year terms again.
Here’s a list of the twelve positions that would be affected, grouped by cycle:
- 2023 > 2026 (instead of 2027)
- King County Elections Director
- King County Assessor
- King County Council, District #2
- King County Council, District #4
- King County Council, District #6
- King County Council, District #8
- 2025 > 2028 (instead of 2029)
- King County Executive
- King County Council, District #1
- King County Council, District #3
- King County Council, District #5
- King County Council, District #7
- King County Council, District #9
The meticulously prepared staff report for Ordinance notes:
If past trends hold, moving these county officer elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years would likely result in higher voter turnout for these county officer elections. Whether Council wants to increase voter turnout for the election of these county offices is a policy decision for the Council to make.
Emphasis is mine.
That, in a nutshell, is what this amendment is all about: ensuring that the people who are elected to govern Washington State’s largest political subdivision are chosen by the largest, broadest, and most diverse electorate possible.
Decades of voter turnout show that participation is consistently high in even-numbered years, while in odd years, it’s typically well under fifty percent.
The gap between even and odd years has morphed into a chasm in recent years, with even years drawing as many as twice as many voters as odd years.
If King County had voted on its next Executive last year instead of this year, hundreds of thousands more voters would have weighed in. For comparison, King County turnout was 85.35% in 2020, and over 1.1 million votes were cast on each of a set of seven charter amendments submitted by the county to voters.
That’s approximately double the number of voters [572,911, to be exact] who chose between Dow Constantine and Joe Nguyen to be the next county executive this month.
It’s actually the norm in Washington State for county offices to be elected in even-numbered years alongside state and federal positions. Thirty-six out of thirty-nine counties follow this long-established practice and enjoy more robust participation as a result. For example, King County’s southern neighbor Pierce County, the second largest county in the state) held its most recent election for Executive in 2020 rather than in 2021, when turnout was more than eighty percent.
The last contested King County Prosecuting Attorney drew hundreds of thousands more voters than the last contested election for Executive, the county’s highest profile and most important office, simply because it was in an even year.
Here’s a comparison:
King County Executive | King County Prosecuting Attorney |
Contested in odd years (currently!) | Contested in even years |
Last election: 2021 | Last election: 2018 |
County turnout that year: 43.41% | County turnout that year: 74.80% |
Votes cast for the office: 572,911 | Votes cast for the office: 789,213 |
216,302 more votes were cast for Prosecuting Attorney in 2018 than for Executive three years later. (And that was despite an increase in the number of registered voters over the course of three years.) To put that in perspective, that’s a difference of more than two Bellevue-sized electorates. More than two!
We don’t know yet what turnout will be like this year. But if it’s anything close to what it was in 2018, then this year’s race for Prosecuting Attorney will again draw more votes than last year’s race for Executive. All thanks to timing.
It has been more than a decade since a majority of voters turned out to vote in an odd-numbered year, both in King County and Washington State as a whole. Although Washingtonians enjoy the right to vote at home, with a window of about three weeks to fill out and return a packet to their county elections office, most voters are choosing to cast ballots only in even-numbered years.
They’re sending a message: fewer elections, please.
We need to listen.
Earlier this year, we unveiled research showing that a majority of Washington voters favor phasing out odd year elections entirely. Our finding, released at a public hearing of the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee, demonstrated voter interest and support for State Representative Mia Gregerson’s legislation to phase out many odd year elections. The committee responded by giving the legislation a “do pass” recommendation for the first time. Not long after, the House Rules Committee sent it to the floor, which was also a first.
While the bill did not get a floor vote, its placement on the floor was a significant and encouraging milestone. Next year’s version of the bill will hopefully be even better and advance the effort to simplify and strengthen our elections at the state level. In the meantime, the King County Council has an excellent opportunity to allow voters to decide if they’d like to align all county elections in even-numbered years. Our research indicates that voters in King County are even more enthusiastic about even year elections than voters in the state as a whole.
QUESTION: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: Washington State should discontinue holding elections in odd-numbered years and instead require cities, counties, ports, school districts, and other local governments to hold their elections in even numbered years, when state and federal offices are on the ballot?
ANSWERS:
- Agree: 52%
- Strongly agree: 31%
- Somewhat agree: 21%
- Disagree: 24%
- Somewhat disagree: 13%
- Strongly disagree: 11%
- Not sure: 24%
And here are the responses from our King County subsample:
QUESTION: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: Washington State should discontinue holding elections in odd-numbered years and instead require cities, counties, ports, school districts, and other local governments to hold their elections in even numbered years, when state and federal offices are on the ballot?
ANSWERS [KING COUNTY SUBSAMPLE]:
- Agree: 54%
- Strongly agree: 36%
- Somewhat agree: 18%
- Disagree: 18%
- Somewhat disagree: 8%
- Strongly disagree: 10%
- Not sure: 28%
Our survey of 909 likely 2022 Washington State voters was in the field from Wednesday, November 10th through Thursday, November 11th, 2021.
It utilizes a blended methodology, with automated phone calls to landlines (50%) and text message answers from cell phone only respondents (50%).
The poll was conducted by Public Policy Polling for the Northwest Progressive Institute and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3% at the 95% confidence interval.
More information about the survey’s methodology is available here.
As we can see, voters in King County were more likely to voice strong agreement for requiring local governments to hold elections in even years than voters in the state as a whole, while fewer voiced disagreement than in the overall sample.
In fact, the percentage who strongly agree in King County is double that of the percentage who somewhat or strongly disagree (36% vs 18%).
We also found that support stayed steady both statewide and in King County after we followed up by presenting selected arguments for and against phasing out odd year elections, including the argument that phasing out odd year elections would increase ballot length. Here are the King County responses:
QUESTION: Proponents of eliminating elections in odd-numbered years say that we could save tens of millions of tax dollars, give voters a break from incessant political TV ads, mailers, and robocalls, and prevent laws from being made by a small fraction of voters by holding elections only in even-numbered years, when turnout is high. Opponents say that eliminating elections in odd years would push statewide initiatives and referenda to a two-year cycle, result in lengthier ballots in even-numbered years, and allow people who are appointed to fill a vacancy to stay in office longer. Having heard these arguments, let me ask you again: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that Washington State should discontinue holding elections in odd-numbered years?
ANSWERS [KING COUNTY SUBSAMPLE]:
- Agree: 53%
- Strongly agree: 35%
- Somewhat agree: 18%
- Disagree: 28%
- Somewhat disagree: 13%
- Strongly disagree: 15%
- Not sure: 20%
While opposition increased by ten points after the arguments for and against were presented (with fewer voters unsure), the big takeaway is that support stayed virtually unchanged. This suggests that most voters aren’t worried about ballots getting longer, which is a frequent argument against even-year elections that we hear. Voters would rather have longer ballots and fewer elections than the bifurcated system we have, with some local offices being elected in even-numbered years but most relegated to odd-numbered years.
Ordinance 2022–0180, if adopted, will have little effect on ballot length because it would only shift twelve offices from odd years to even years, with nine of those twelve offices sharing ballot space because they are district-based. Depending on what district they’re in, King County voters would see at most three more items in a midterm cycle than they do today, and at most two more in a presidential cycle.
Even those who don’t agree with us that odd year elections ought to be phased out can hopefully see the logic of this charter amendment, which is only concerned with twelve positions at one level of government.
Ensuring King County’s county-level elections are all in even years will align the state’s largest county with its smaller peers, and ensure that the electorate that picks the Executive, Council, Assessor, and Elections Director is the same electorate that already elects the Prosecuting Attorney and Superior Court judges.
Importantly, the Executive, who has a tremendous amount of authority and appointing power, would be chosen in presidential years along with the Governor.
As the staff report explains, this charter amendment will have little effect on ballot length or election costs. It won’t change the timing of city elections, port elections, school board elections, or any other elections. It is thus modest from a procedural perspective, but it will have a big payoff: By the end of this decade, much larger and more diverse electorates will be choosing King County’s nine member legislative body along with all of its executive officers.
Just think: If this amendment is adopted, hundreds of thousands more voters will end up regularly participating in the selection of King County’s future leaders, which could raise the profile of county government and improve awareness and interest in the important work that goes on in the Courthouse.
Let’s make that happen. Let’s pass Ordinance 2022–0180.
One Ping
[…] research has found that majorities in both the state as a whole and in King County are ready to make the switch. At least at the county level, voters are soon going to get that […]