Public Defender Nathan Rouse Brings Frontline Experience to Seattle City Attorney Race

In a comprehensive interview with Crystal Fincher of Hacks & Wonks, Seattle City Attorney candidate Nathan Rouse outlines his vision for reforming the office through the lens of his public defender experience, criticizing incumbent Republican Ann Davison's approach while proposing alternative solutions focused on addressing root causes of crime.

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 and find Nathan Rouse at @nathanrouse.

Episode Transcript

(00:13):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I’m your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work, with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what’s happening, why it’s
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're speaking with NathanRouse, a candidate running for

(00:37):
Seattle's City Attorney, a positionwith real power to shape how our city
responds to harm, enforces laws, andprotects the rights of its residents.
While this office doesn't always makeheadlines, its decisions have a direct
impact on public safety, civil rights,and the everyday lives of Seattleites.
The City Attorney leads a staff of nearly200, including more than 100 attorneys,

(01:00):
and oversees both the criminal, civil, andadministrative divisions of the office.
On the criminal side, the CityAttorney prosecutes misdemeanor and
gross misdemeanor cases - things likeshoplifting, simple assault, DUI, and
trespassing - in Seattle Municipal Court.
Felony cases are handled by theKing County Prosecutor, so that's a
different entity, not the City Attorney.

(01:22):
So while the office doesn't overseeor deal with the most serious violent
crimes, it plays a major role in shapinghow lower-level offenses are addressed
- including whether to pursue prosecution,offer diversion, or prioritize
treatment and services over jail time.
On the civil side, the City Attorneyserves as legal counsel for the
City of Seattle - advising electedofficials, reviewing legislation,

(01:45):
and defending the city in lawsuits.
That includes navigating complex andhigh-stakes issues: deciding how to
respond to federal attempts to identifyand deport undocumented immigrants
and other actions, even when doing socould put federal funding for critical
services like housing and transit atrisk; advising a largely new City Council

(02:05):
on the legality of proposed laws; anddetermining how to approach enforcement
of newly passed ordinances targeting druguse, sex work, and people living outdoors.
In today's conversation, we'll be askingNathan about his vision for the office,
how he'd approach these decisions, andwhat his priorities will be if elected.
But we'll be starting with ourHacks & Wonks Lightning Round

(02:30):
questions - series of quick yes-or-noor one-word-answer questions.
And if you aren't able to providean answer quickly, we'll call
it a waffle and you can chooseto address it later if you wish.
We'll get to the open-endedquestions after this, so we
will have plenty of time.
But these are designed to give us - andyou - a sense of where each candidate
stands on key issues, what values shapetheir thinking, and how they approach

(02:53):
the responsibilities of the role.
So we ask you to keep your responses toYes'es or No's and brief and direct - and
we'll have plenty of time to get intothe details in the open-ended questions.
So to begin our Lightning Round,do you own or rent your residence?
Own.
Are you a landlord?
No.

(03:13):
Have you ever been a member of a union?
Yes.
Have you ever walked on a picket line?
No.
Have you ever crossed a picket line?
No.
Is your campaign staff unionized?
No.
If your campaign staff wants tounionize, will you voluntarily
recognize their efforts?
Yes.

(03:34):
What political party do you identify with?
Democrats.
Have you used the Seattle PublicLibrary system in the past month?
Yes.
Have you been to a Seattle City Councilmeeting in person in the past year?
Yes.
Have you or someone in your householdever relied on public assistance?
No.

(03:54):
Have you ever been stopped orquestioned by police in Seattle?
Yes.
Have you ever worked in retail or ajob where you had to rely on tips?
Yes.
Have you ever owned a business?
No.
Have you ever managed ateam of 10 or more people?
No.
Have you ever reported someone'smisconduct in your workplace?

(04:16):
No.
Have you ever fired someone?
No.
What's your favorite park in Seattle?
Seward Park.
What's your favorite restaurant?
Billiard Hoang in Columbia City.
What was the last live performancethat you saw in Seattle?
Weezer at Climate Pledge Arena.

(04:36):
Do you agree with the City Attorney'sdecision to end Seattle Community Court?
No.
Do you believe that SPD referrals for useand possession of controlled substances
are equitable throughout the city?
No.
Do you believe the City Attorney'sOffice, or CAO, filing decisions for use
and possession are being made equitably?

(04:57):
No.
Do you support the SOAP and SODAlegislation passed by the council?
No.
Do you agree with the city's decisionto jail people arrested for misdemeanor
offenses in the South CorrectionalEntity, or SCORE, facility in Des Moines?
No.
Do you support the new safety regulationsfor nightlife lounges operating after 2
a.m. recently passed by the City Councilto address gun violence and disorder?

(05:21):
Tentatively.
Do you support increasingfunding in the City budget for
violence intervention programs?
Yes.
Do you believe it's inappropriateto subpoena media organizations
for their records on behalf of SPD?
Yes.
Do you support the city's decisionto join a lawsuit that challenges the

(05:42):
Trump Administration actions againstjurisdictions like Seattle that
have so-called "sanctuary" policies?
Absolutely.
Do you believe that the CityAttorney's Office provides sufficient
data and transparency regardingtheir activity and outcomes?
No.
The City Attorney's Officecurrently provides a quarterly
report for the Criminal Division.

(06:04):
Should quarterly reports alsobe provided for the Civil
and Administrative Divisions?
Yes.
Do you believe the City Attorney'sOffice should make hiring decisions
that include consideration of diversity,equity, and inclusion - or DEI?
Yes.
Do you believe the City Attorney'sOffice should incorporate diversity,
equity, and inclusion considerationsin the design and evaluation of the

(06:25):
effectiveness of programs and initiatives?
Yes.
Should the City Attorney's Officereport on all financial settlements
and staff costs related to claimsregarding city employee conduct?
Yes.
Will you vigorously defend thecity against lawsuits that oppose
funding or action by Seattle'ssocial housing developer?

(06:49):
Yes.
Do large corporations in Seattlepay their fair share of taxes?
No.
Do small businesses in Seattlepay their fair share of taxes?
Yes.
Do you plan to increase fundingand staffing for prosecutions
of labor violations like wagetheft and illegal union busting?
Yes.
Do you think facial recognitionshould be banned in city use?

(07:12):
Yes.
Did Seattle ever "defund the police"?
No.
Do you think every policeofficer in Seattle should be
required to live in the city?
No.
Have you ever been arrested?
No.
Have you ever served on a jury?
Nope.
Have you ever contested a traffic ticket?

(07:33):
Yes.
Have you taken transit in the past week?
Yes.
Have you ridden a bike in the past week?
Yes.
What's your favorite song?
"Fetch the Bolt Cutters" by Fiona Apple.
Ooh.
What's the last song that you listened to?
A song called "Nina" by Cameron Winter.

(07:53):
Okay.
What's the most recent book you've read?
Punishment Without Crime by - it'sactually right here - Alexandra Natapoff.
Would you recommend it to others to read?
Yes.
Have you voted in every generalelection in the past four years?
Yes.
Have you voted in every primaryelection in the past four years?

(08:14):
Yes.
Have you made any politicalendorsements that you regret?
No.
Have you made any politicaldonations that you regret?
No.
In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrellor Lorena González for Seattle Mayor?
Lorena González.
In 2021, did you vote for AnnDavison or Nicole Thomas Kennedy

(08:34):
for Seattle City Attorney?
Nicole Thomas Kennedy.
In 2021, did you vote for Sara Nelsonor Nikkita Oliver for City Council?
Nikkita Oliver.
In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion orJim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor?
Leesa Manion.
In 2024, did you vote forAlexis Mercedes Rinck or Tanya

(08:55):
Woo for Seattle City Council?
Alexis Mercedes Rinck.
And did you vote for Nick Brown orPete Serrano for Attorney General?
Nick Brown.
Did you vote for Bob Fergusonor Dave Reichert for Governor?
Bob Ferguson.
Did you vote for Donald Trumpor Kamala Harris for President?
Kamala Harris.
Will you be voting to approve theAutomated Fingerprint Identification

(09:16):
System, or AFIS, levy on thismonth's April 22nd ballot?
Yes.
This year, on Seattle's socialhousing initiative in February,
did you vote for Option 1A - whichpassed - 1B, or no to both?
1A.
Will you be voting for ClaudiaBalducci, John Wilson, or Girmay

(09:36):
Zahalai for County Executive?
Girmay Zahilay.
Well, thank you for your responses- that concludes our Lightning Round.
Hopefully it wasn't too painful.
That was fun.
Now we're going to shift intothe heart of the conversation
with open-ended questions.
This is where we'll go deeper on yourvision for the City Attorney's Office,
and how you'd approach key issues facingSeattle, and how your values would

(09:57):
guide your decisions in this role.
So to start, why are you runningto be Seattle's City Attorney
and what are your priorities?
I'm a public defender and Ilove being a public defender.
However, doing that work day in and dayout - meeting with my clients in the
jails, in the courtrooms - I see systemicfailure on a daily basis in Seattle.

(10:24):
I see prosecution withoutany purpose or plan.
I see a failure to use places likethe Municipal Court to provide
things like mental health support,drug addiction treatment, housing,
and other very important resources.

(10:45):
The way that prosecution isperpetuated at the misdemeanor level
in Seattle is not succeeding - andI see that on a daily basis.
I see the failure not only to myclients, but to victims of crimes who
are not getting what they want either.

(11:05):
And so when I look at a systemlike the Seattle Municipal Court,
I say - What are we doing here andis justice in Seattle just a joke?
The prosecutions that happen atthe misdemeanor level need to
be done with purpose and a plan.
And so I'm running because I have an ideaof a plan and a purpose for using the

(11:30):
Seattle City Attorney's Office to actuallyinterrupt the revolving door of folks
going in and out of jail, in and out ofwarrant status - and to actually use that
place as a connection point for services,and interrupt that revolving door, and
get at the root causes of these behaviors.

(11:51):
Now, we'll get into your disagreementswith the incumbent - City Attorney
Ann Davison - in detail as weproceed throughout this interview.
But I'm wondering - has Ann Davisongotten anything right that you would
look to continue or build upon?
An example of something that Ann Davisonhas gotten right recently was quickly

(12:12):
moving to dismiss six complaints bywealthy neighborhoods trying to interrupt
the housing development plan in Seattle.
I would take proactive action like thatas well - because we have a housing
crisis in Seattle, and we can't letwealthy neighborhoods disrupt that.

(12:32):
We can't let our political processbe taken over by NIMBY interests.
We have to build housing,and we have to build it now.
Now, violent crime, includinggun violence, continues to harm
communities across Seattle.
Do you believe the current CityAttorney has taken the right steps to
address gun violence and violent crime?
And what actions would you take to reduceviolence and support impacted communities?

(12:58):
I don't think that thecurrent approach is working.
I noticed the other day that there was alaw passed to shut down the hookah lounges
in south Seattle and other neighborhoods.
I will reserve judgment on whetherthat is effective - but I see
that as an example of reactivelegislation, not proactive legislation.

(13:22):
Make no mistake - gun violence isunacceptable and we have to respond to
it, we have to make our communities safer.
It's unacceptable that people aredying from gun violence at all in our
city and we have to react to that.
But in order to be effective,we have to be proactive.

(13:44):
You could look to places like Baltimoreand their Safe Streets Initiative for
recognizing that things like proactive,long-term caseworker support for people
that are disproportionately impactedby gun violence is a way of getting at
the root cause of some of these things.

(14:07):
We can't wait for it to happen andthen try to react to it - simply doing
stuff like shutting down a handful ofsmall businesses that are predominantly
owned by people of color - that is notgoing to get at the root causes of the
gun violence epidemic in our country.
It is a public health issueand it must be treated as such.

(14:30):
Now we've seen a rise in dangerousdriving across Seattle - from an
increase in pedestrians being hit andkilled to other high-profile nuisances
like the so-called Belltown Hellcat.
What role do you see the City Attorney'sOffice playing in improving traffic safety
and addressing reckless or dangerousdriving behaviors on our streets?

(14:53):
The first thing that comes to mindfor addressing traffic safety,
I think - has to be addressed bythe way that we design our roads.
Because the way that our roads aredesigned enable high-speed driving
and reckless driving - and itenables pedestrians and cyclists

(15:14):
to be hit, it causes accidents - sowe're setting up conditions for
these behaviors to harm people.
So that is outside of the CityAttorney's Office, and it's outside
of the scope of the responsibilities.
So I think that we need proactive effortsby the City Council to make sure that

(15:39):
funding is directed at installing trafficcalming devices, making our streets
safer, and getting at the issue that way.
And I think the City Attorney's Officecan be a proactive ally of the City
Council in making it clear that theCity Attorney's Office will defend
any legal effort to those challenges.

(16:00):
So the City Attorney, of course,advises leaders like the City
Council on issues like that.
But I see that as the main way to respondto the dangerous driving and traffic
deaths that we see in places like Seattle.
I don't think that we're going to be ableto prosecute our way out of this issue.
Is there anything different that youwould do to address issues like Driving

(16:26):
Under the Influence or habitual nuisances?
Driving Under the Influence is oneof the most serious crimes that's
handled by the Seattle Municipal Court.
So the City Attorney's Office ishandling misdemeanors that are DUIs,
up to and including the third DUIin 10 years - it doesn't become a

(16:49):
felony until you hit four in 10 years.
So that is getting to a place whereif someone is alleged to have had a
third DUI in 10 years, you're lookingat a very serious public safety issue.
Those three DUIs could happen withinan even shorter time frame than that.
So I look at a repeat DUI as a veryserious public safety issue, and it's

(17:11):
one example of the type of situationwhere prosecution is appropriate.
If you look at Ann Davison's record,however - on that success of prosecuting
DUIs, you see a couple of things.
Number one, you see a backlogof DUI prosecutions - that's

(17:33):
explained by toxicology delays.
I don't buy that excusefor a couple of reasons.
One, in Washington, you canprosecute and win a DUI case without
any sort of toxicology report.
There's an affected by statute - it'sa trigger in the statute that

(17:54):
allows the prosecutor to prove DUIif someone's affected by alcohol.
So an officer can testify about signs ofimpairment - you don't need a toxicology
report to prosecute these serious DUIs.
The other thing I see in the SeattleCity Attorney's Office is a very,
very high rate of dismissals ofcases that are set for jury trial.

(18:16):
I think in the Quarter 3 of 2024, itwas upwards of 70% of cases were being
dismissed if they're set for trial.
That's a very, very high rateof cases being dismissed.
So I look at a serious DUI crime assomething that needs to be prosecuted,
and there actually needs to beaccountability in the traditional

(18:39):
sense that we think about prosecution.
I don't think that necessarily jail isthe answer - but when you get a conviction
for a DUI, there are conditions that areattached to it like breathalyzer tests,
interlock devices on someone's car,losing the ability to have a license.
So we need to take things like repeatDUIs very seriously, and I don't think

(19:05):
Ann Davison has been effective on that.
I think that the current City Attorney hasbeen very rhetorical when talking about
those issues and not very successful.
What role does the City Attorneyplay in mitigating federal attacks
on civil rights, particularly thosethat target the trans community and
immigrant and refugee communities?

(19:27):
We have to proactively filelawsuits challenging the federal
administration and its effort tocrack down on places like Seattle.
We can't allow the Trump administrationto trample our city's values.
I see an example of - I believe itwas a headline just the other day - of

(19:53):
gender-affirming care not beingprovided anymore due to threats from
the federal Trump administration.
We have to protect our city.
We have to protect our residents.
That includes anyone seekinggender-affirming care, anyone seeking
reproductive justice, anyone who does nothave the privilege of being what Trump

(20:17):
would consider a United States citizen.
So we have to use the City Attorney'sOffice and the Civil Division to
file lawsuits challenging thingslike illegal executive orders.
These orders are unconstitutionaland they're coming in waves
- there's an avalanche of attackson places like Seattle - and
it's only going to get worse.

(20:38):
So we cannot back down to Trump.
Now, Seattle has expanded its use ofsurveillance technologies, like CCTV
systems and Real-Time Crime Centersoftware, particularly in neighborhoods
like the Chinatown-InternationalDistrict and Aurora Avenue.
Civil rights organizations, includingthe ACLU of Washington, have raised
concerns that these technologiesmay disproportionately impact Black

(21:03):
and Brown communities and could beleveraged by federal agencies like
ICE to target immigrants and refugees.
Given the Trump administration'sintensified immigration enforcement
efforts, how would you, as City Attorney,work to ensure that surveillance
tools aren't used to exacerbate racialdisparities or facilitate federal
targeting of vulnerable populations?

(21:26):
Well, I was opposed to the legislationlast year that expanded the use of
CCTV technology, purportedly as amethod of reducing gun violence.
There's no evidence toshow that it does that.
The use of CCTVs, I believe, is onlydemonstrably effective at reducing

(21:46):
things like car thefts or carbreak-ins - property-related crimes.
So I was opposed to that CCTVexpansion for that reason.
The broader concerns cited by theACLU, I think, are very legitimate.
The government collecting data aboutpeople in broad swaths is always

(22:10):
concerning at any time, but particularlyat a time when you have Trump breathing
down our necks and coming after placeslike Seattle - it's not out of the realm
of possibility that our city leaders will

(22:31):
protect everybody asthey purport they will.
You have a mayor like Eric Adams who isallowing ICE to come into Rikers, and we
have to be so vigilant to make sure thatsomething like that does not happen here.
And so when I see broad uses of technologyto gather people's information, it

(22:55):
makes me very concerned because thattechnology gathers data that then
sits in the possession of governmentsthat Trump might be targeting.
And if the wrong leader makes the wrongdecision about what is done with that
data, then all of a sudden it's in thehands of somebody that wants it, to
use it for cruel and punitive purposes.

(23:19):
And we have to prevent that.
So what measures would you implementor advise to promote transparency,
accountability, and community oversightin the deployment of those technologies?
I think there needs to be veryclear and readily available
transparency as the number one step.

(23:43):
We were talking earlier about thereports issued by the City Attorney's
Office - I believe only the first andthird quarterly reports from last year are
published on the City Attorney's website.
That data is so critical tounderstand what's actually happening
in the City Attorney's Office.

(24:04):
Why do we only have the firstand third quarter of 2024?
What happened to Quarter 2?
Where's Quarter 4?
So that's an example of datathat exists - it's just not
being shared with the public.
And the public
is the client - the City Attorneyrepresents the city - that includes
all of the residents of the city.

(24:27):
And we have to make sure that the city istransparent with the data it keeps - and
that includes surveillance technology.
Now, in light of Seattle's recent $10million settlement with protesters
who alleged excessive force by policeduring the 2020 demonstrations, and
considering ongoing concerns aboutthe treatment of protesters, how

(24:48):
would you, as City Attorney, ensurethe protection of First Amendment
rights during public demonstrations?
Another example where I was opposedto recent legislation is bringing back
the use of blast balls because - ata time when Trump is taking power
for a second term, why would we givepolice the authority to use what are

(25:14):
called non-lethal weapons, but canabsolutely be lethal, against people
that will be gathering to voice theirconcerns about federal overreach?
This is a time when people need to be
filling the streets to stand up for whatthey believe in, to voice their discontent

(25:35):
with what's happening at the federallevel - but also at the city level.
We can't let people feel fearful ofbeing harmed if they gather in protest.
That is an absolutely critical right- and bringing back things like blast
balls, I think, makes people feelless safe when they go to a protest.
So we need to make people feel safe tocome out into the streets and protest

(26:00):
what's happening - and that includeseverything from the federal level down
to what's happening at the city level.
Ann Davison ended Seattle's CommunityCourt, a program designed to divert
people facing low-level chargesinto services instead of jail.
Critics have argued that thisdecision rolled back a key alternative
to prosecution and disconnectedpeople from the help they need.

(26:23):
What's your view of that decision,and what, if any, changes would
you make to how the City Attorney'sOffice approaches diversion programs?
We need off-ramps fromprosecution and arrest.
And what I mean by that is that - whenthere is an arrest, there's so much
inertia in our society that thatshould lead to jail and prosecution.

(26:50):
Prosecution and arrest and jailare baked into the consciousness
of people in our country when theythink about public safety issues.
We need to change that.
Specifically regarding yourquestion, we need to make sure
that diversion is the first

(27:13):
response to much of themisdemeanor crime that's handled
by the City Attorney's Office.
Diversion, meaning - noprosecution at all, no jail at all.
An example would be the LEADProgram that's run by Purpose.
Dignity.
Action.
- that's a program where officers,instead of sending someone to jail,

(27:34):
they give them a referral to LEAD.
And that connects them to caseworkersupport, it connects them to very
important services - and that's away of making sure that we have a
sort of community-based response towhat we would traditionally think
of as a public safety responsethat involves jail and prosecution.

(27:57):
Community Court was anexample of another off-ramp.
So, you know, cases that are actuallyfiled by the City Attorney's Office
- because if they are not divertedpre-arrest or pre-booking, they can
wind up being filed once they arereferred to the City Attorney's Office.

(28:18):
But just because something isreferred to the City Attorney's
Office for prosecution does not meanwe cannot then send that case into
a place where there is meaningfulintervention that involves things
like mental health support, substanceuse support, and housing referrals.

(28:41):
So Community Court was a very importantcomponent of what I mean by off-ramps
- off-ramps from the traditional idea ofprosecuting someone, punishing them,
and, you know, sending them to jail.
Community Court was a veryimportant step in that process
because there are some cases thatshould just never be filed at all.
And I would file far fewer casesif I were elected City Attorney - I

(29:04):
would not file most non-violentmisdemeanors because those should
be diverted to programs like LEAD.
But there's other cases that fall betweenthe things like serious DUIs, serious
domestic violence - there's a category inthe middle between diversion and serious

(29:24):
charges that are filed and prosecuted- where Community Court is appropriate.
And Community Court is a placewhere you can connect someone with
resources and then they can havetheir case ultimately dismissed.
So getting rid of that CommunityCourt without anything to replace it
was a huge mistake, especially at atime when the city was bringing back

(29:48):
its misdemeanor drug possession law.
Those two events occurredvery close together.
And it's such a missed opportunityto get rid of Community Court
without even thinking about whatyou were going to put in its place.
We have so many more resources thathave come online over the past several
years in King County and in Seattle.

(30:10):
City Attorney's Office should bepartnering with those organizations to
provide access to medication-assisteddrug treatment, harm reduction, housing,
mental health support - all of the arrayof things that we know are evidence-based
and are actually going to succeed atinterrupting the things that the City

(30:31):
Attorney's Office is prosecuting.
How do you respond to people who feel likediversion is letting people off too easy?
And having them go through the traditionalcriminal legal system provides more
accountability, more oversight, offersmore of a chance that they'll take the
offense seriously and not do it again?

(30:54):
My response is that it justdoesn't happen that way.
And I know that - when I see thesesame cycles repeat on a daily basis
in the city of Seattle, there is noevidence to show that just because
someone is arrested and prosecuted andconvicted, that necessarily anything

(31:16):
will change as a consequence for that.
When we think about something likean arrest, a jail - about booking in
a jail - prosecution, a conviction.
What is the purpose of all that?
What is the purpose of an arrest?
What is the purpose of jailing someone?
What is the purpose of prosecuting them?

(31:37):
What is the purpose of convicting them?
And then
there's no thought about whatthe actual purpose of that is.
And there's no evidence to showthat much of the prosecution
in Seattle has any purpose.
What about a conviction is going tochange someone's behavior if they're very,

(31:59):
very addicted on a drug like fentanyl?
What is going to change?
Nothing.
So there's no evidence to show thatengaging in this traditional method
of prosecution and conviction isgoing to actually accomplish anything.
In fact, the data showsthat the opposite is true.

(32:20):
When people get stuck in the cycle ofarrest, prosecution, jail, and then
the warrant churn - when people pick upwarrants for missing court - it traps
people in the cycle of recidivism.
So you actually see the oppositephenomenon occurring, which is that

(32:42):
this traditional method of arrestand prosecution is making us all less
safe in the traditional sense thatpeople in general think about safety.
In order to actually interrupt thecycle, we need to provide those services.
Because I can tell you, as someone thatis in jail with my clients, meeting

(33:04):
with them on a regular basis, someonethat goes to court with them - people
that are addicted to fentanyl - theydon't want to be addicted to fentanyl.
This is not volitional, defiant behavior.
This is not people kind of tellingsociety to, you know, whatever.

(33:25):
This is an addiction crisis.
This is a situation where insteadof providing addiction support,
we're putting them in jail.
Instead of providing the mental healthsupport, we're putting them in jail.
Those things make the problem worse,and I am so frustrated by that.
And the reason I'm runningfor this position is because

(33:46):
I know that we can do better.
Now, Seattle has reinstated Seattle'sStay Out of Drug Areas and Stay Out
of Areas of Prostitution, also knownas SOAP and SODA laws, which allow
judges to ban people accused ofcertain offenses from designated areas.
While proponents of those SOAP andSODA laws argue that these measures

(34:09):
aim to disrupt open-air drug marketsand reduce sex trafficking, evidence
suggests that these measures may noteffectively reduce drug use or human
trafficking and could disproportionatelyimpact marginalized communities.
As City Attorney, how would youassess the efficacy of these laws,
and what approach would you taketo make sure that enforcement

(34:31):
is both effective and equitable?
I'll kind of make this easy.
I won't enforce them.
I won't enforce SOAP or SODA zones.
They don't work.
They're demonstrably ineffective.
Displacement strategies are notgoing to change anything about

(34:55):
behavior - all they do is disrupt anddisplace people to other neighborhoods.
So if you're trying to actually get at theroot causes of some of these issues, just
scattering people into other neighborhoodsis not going to accomplish that.
It's going to move theproblem somewhere else.

(35:19):
And in the process of doingthat, you are going to separate
people from access to services.
A lot of services, for example, areconcentrated in places like 3rd Avenue
downtown, right by the courthouse.
Discouraging people from being inplaces like Downtown is not going to be

(35:44):
successful as a way of addressing thebehaviors that are trying to be changed.
So we know that the SOAP andSODA zones won't work because
they don't have that effect.
We also know that the CityAttorney's Office isn't even
using them for the most part.
I think there are a very smallnumber of SOAP and SODA orders

(36:08):
that have been actually enforcedin any way at all, or even granted.
I think there was maybe one SOAPorder and a couple of SODA orders.
There have not beenprosecutions under these laws.
And what's important toremember is to back up and

(36:35):
the complaints that people had inSeattle that led to the passage of SOAP
and SODA - people were legitimatelyfrustrated in the community about
what they saw as sort of uncheckedviolent behavior, unchecked human
trafficking, unchecked drug trafficking.

(36:58):
The problem is that SOAP andSODA are not answers to that.
And it's not honest to respond tolegitimate and sincere concerns
by members of our communityby giving them a demonstrably
ineffective method of addressingpublic safety, like SOAP and SODA.

(37:19):
So for all those reasons, I wouldnot use SOAP and SODA at all.
And I would pursue strategiesthat are proactive, not reactive.
I think SOAP and SODA is performativepolitics, and that's all.
So much of our public conversationaround crime focuses on punishing

(37:39):
offenders, but very little attention ispaid to rehabilitation and prevention.
That conversation often claims to speakfor victims - but studies, including
another major one just released, show thatmost victims of violent crime actually
want more investment in rehabilitationand prevention than in punishment.
Do you agree that we shouldfocus more on keeping people from

(38:02):
becoming victims in the first place?
And if so, how would you use the powersof the City Attorney's Office to do that?
I absolutely agree that we should bemore proactive at preventing people from
becoming victims in the first place.
An example of when I see thatvery often is seeing when my
clients are victims of crime.

(38:25):
I can't tell you how many times I'vehad clients who have not only been
victims of things like assault ortheft or what have you, but also
economic injustice, wage theft.
We see so often hardworking peoplethat are taken advantage of by

(38:46):
unethical employers, unethicalbusiness owners, have you - and that's
an area where the City Attorney'soffice can really make a difference.
We need to pursue economic justiceusing the City Attorney's Office.
The City Attorney's office canprosecute things like wage theft when

(39:07):
it's referred - complaints by theOffice of Labor Standards - that's not
being done as much as it should be.
We should build that out and we shouldbe aggressive in enforcing our wage laws.
Wage theft is unacceptable, asare unfair housing practices.
And

(39:28):
we need to do better in beingproactive to prevent people
from becoming victims of crime.
Many crime victims report not receivingthe help they need in the aftermath
of what they've experienced - whetherit's trauma recovery, housing support,
or simply being kept informed aboutwhat's happening in their case.
As City Attorney, how would you work tomake sure victims are better supported

(39:50):
and centered in the legal process, andnot just used to justify punishment?
There needs to absolutely bebetter centering of victims
in the criminal legal process.
Victims' advocates are a good voicefor that process, and we should
absolutely continue funding victims'advocates who are effective at

(40:14):
giving a voice to victims of crimes.
As a public defender, again, I can'ttell you how many times I've had
a crime victim call me and say theprosecutor isn't taking my calls - I
don't want this case prosecuted, Iwant it dropped, please drop this case.
And all I can say is - I represent thedefendant in this action, I can connect

(40:38):
you with the prosecutor, I can conveyyour concerns, I can listen to you.
But that has happened countless timesin my experience as a public defender.
And what that tells me is that
many victims of crimes don'twant to be used as an excuse

(40:59):
for perpetuating more harm.
They want to be listened to.
They want to have their voices heard.
They want to have animpact on the process.
And so many times, victims arenot given that voice - they are
not centered in the process.

(41:21):
I've also been an advocate for tryingto bring restorative justice models
into prosecution, where we workwith the prosecution to facilitate
an exchange between the victim ofa crime and the alleged perpetrator
of the crime to have dialogue.
And very often, prosecutorsare not receptive to that.

(41:43):
So there needs to be a culture shiftaway from this sort of baked in idea of
arrest, jail, prosecution, conviction.
Because if we're not doing itfor any demonstrable reason, then
it's not worth doing because itcauses so much harm in the process.

(42:03):
Now, you previously mentioned thatwage theft remains a significant issue
in Seattle, with cases like thoseinvolving Baja Concrete and Newway
Forming highlighting the challengesworkers face in recovering stolen
wages and trying to avoid retaliation.
Given that the City Attorney's Officeplays a crucial role in prosecuting

(42:23):
wage theft cases referred by theOffice of Labor Standards, how do
you plan to enhance enforcementefforts to ensure timely and effective
justice for affected workers?
The Office of Labor Standardshas been excellent as an advocate
for combating wage theft.
I remember reading about a bigsettlement with Chipotle, I

(42:45):
think, last year at some point.
And that is absolutely critical workthat the Office of Labor Standards
does - they do such a great jobinvestigating allegations of wage theft.
But an important part of the processis if the Office of Labor Standards
believes a referral should be madeto the City Attorney's Office,

(43:08):
they can refer a case out of theiroffice to the CAO for prosecution.
What I've heard is that there's nota lot of faith among people that work
at the Office of Labor Standards, thatthe City Attorney's Office is going to
act on those referrals for prosecution.

(43:28):
So that is another area where the CityAttorney's Office needs to be very,
very clear with the Office of LaborStandards - that they will be a partner
for making sure that this unacceptablebehavior doesn't go unchecked.
The City Attorney's Office needs tocommunicate that clearly to the Office
of Labor Standards, so there isn't anyconcern about - Well, if I refer this over

(43:52):
to them, is that going to have any effect?
Is this actually going to be prosecuted?
So that messaging needs to be very clear.
The City Attorney's Office should be as
strong an advocate as they possiblycan to combat wage theft, because the

(44:12):
harm that occurs is in the millions andmillions of dollars on a yearly basis.
And the harm that is being suffered isbeing suffered by hardworking people.
The Washington Attorney General recentlyfiled a lawsuit against RealPage
and several landlords, alleging thatthey used algorithmic software to
coordinate rent increases, affectingabout 800,000 leases in the state.

(44:37):
The practice is believed tohave significantly contributed
to rising rents in Seattle.
As City Attorney, what steps wouldyou take to address the harm caused
by those practices and preventsimilar issues in the future?
Number one - I think that the Cityof Seattle should enact legislation
prohibiting algorithmic pricesetting in the housing market space.

(45:03):
Cities like Philadelphia andSan Francisco have done that.
And the City Attorney, as we know,can propose legislation to the
City Council - we saw that fromthe SOAP and SODA legislation.
So that's an example of affirmativelegislation that I would be
very interested in proposing tothe City Council - because the

(45:27):
price-fixing concerns that thatlawsuit identifies are very serious.
And we know housing is a crisis inSeattle for for many, many, many people
- most clearly, the people that relyon rental spaces to live in Seattle.
And we have to make everything,have to do everything we can to make

(45:51):
apartments affordable in Seattle.
And number two - beyond thelegislation, the City Attorney's Office
has the ability to sue companies,just like Nick Brown just did with
RealPage just a couple weeks ago.
I applaud that because before the lawsuitthat was just filed, Washington had

(46:13):
joined with the Department of Justice,I believe, in going after RealPage.
But what Nick Brown did was identifythat there are state law claims against
RealPage, and he brought that intothe King County Superior Court as a
lawsuit by Washington against RealPage.
The City of Seattle can do that, too.
So the City of Seattle, with theCity Attorney's office in the lead,

(46:36):
can identify litigation that'sappropriate for the city to file.
The city did that under Pete Holmes'leadership when the city sued Monsanto
for pollution of the Duwamish - that thenresulted in a $160 million settlement.
So we need to be looking foropportunities to make sure that we're
standing up and using the civil powersof the City Attorney's Office to

(46:56):
fight for and defend our residents.
Do you support the creation of apublicly accessible database of
corporate-owned real estate inSeattle to enhance transparency and
accountability in the housing market?
Yes, I mean, I think that goes along withwhat I was saying earlier - just that
publicly accessible data issuch an important component

(47:18):
of running a municipality.
That data should be public - thepublic has a right to know about
it - I would absolutely support that.
The Seattle Municipal Court has facedsignificant case backlogs in recent years.
As City Attorney, how would you addressthese backlogs to ensure timely justice?
I would take a hard look at the casesthat we have pending - because there are

(47:41):
thousands and thousands of cases pending,and I am not convinced that prosecution
is the appropriate response for manyand many of the cases that are pending.
And if we can divert those casesout of prosecution, then we should

(48:01):
absolutely look at dismissing nonviolentmisdemeanors - because prosecuting
someone over and over with a crimelike criminal trespass because they are
unhoused and it's winter and they needa place to sleep that's dry - you're not
accomplishing anything by prosecutingthat person over and over again.

(48:23):
Cases where people are being prosecutedand there's evidence that that
person's not competent to stand trialand the city has that information
already - why are we prosecutingthat person in the first place?
Cases where - even
low-level property damage - why don'twe set up a victims' compensation fund?

(48:48):
And so the business whose windowis broken can get money from
the city to fix their window?
Why don't we just do that because wecan't look to under-resourced individuals
to pay restitution to victims of crime?
It's not tenable because folks that arecommitting low-level property theft,
by and large, lack the resources topay restitution, oftentimes because

(49:11):
they are experiencing being unhoused orbeing addicted to a drug like fentanyl.
So we need to take a really hardlook at the cases that are pending
and decide which cases are essentialto maintain for public safety.
Where is the evidence that we needto be prosecuting these cases?

(49:31):
And if the evidence doesn't supporta tangible benefit to prosecution,
they should be dismissed.
In 2024, City Attorney Ann Davison'soffice filed a blanket affidavit of
prejudice to disqualify Judge PoojaVaddadi from all criminal cases,
citing a pattern of biased rulings.
However, the substantiation ofthose claims were definitely

(49:53):
questioned, and the move sparkedsignificant debate about prosecutorial
discretion and judicial independence.
How do you view that action?
And under what circumstances, if any,would you consider using such authority
to disqualify a judge from cases?
I was obviously opposed to theblanket affidavit against my
former colleague, Pooja Vaddadi.

(50:15):
I don't think that a blanket affidavitunder the circumstances where it was
used in this case was appropriate at all.
It was anti-democratic, in fact, totake an elected official out of the
court, essentially - to disqualifyher from hearing any criminal case.
So I was very opposed to that,as you probably aren't surprised.

(50:41):
Blanket affidavits in general - Ithink you have to think about
very cautiously because of thatdynamic, these are elected judges.
An example of where affidavits areappropriate as a prosecutor - you have
to reserve them for situations wherea judge is not following the law.

(51:01):
And you have to be specific about that.
If a judge, for instance, were routinelysetting bail at an unaffordable rate
and was completely disproportionate fromthe rest of the judges in that court,
and it was preventing someone withoutfinancial means from being released
from jail, and they were doing thatroutinely - that judge is not enforcing

(51:25):
the law, that judge is preying upon theeconomic vulnerability of our residents.
So that's an example wherean affidavit is appropriate.
And I'm coming from this issue, obviously,as a public defender, but prosecutors
should be concerned about defendants'rights too - because prosecutors

(51:48):
represent not just the victim of acrime, they represent the community.
And that community includes thealleged offender of that crime.
So prosecutors need to be thinkingabout the rights of everybody involved.
And so, if there's a routine violationof someone's constitutional rights, then
affidavits of prejudice are appropriate.

(52:10):
Now, we also asked each candidate toask a question of their opponents.
This question is from your opponent,Erika Evans: You've spoken about
being a voice for vulnerable,underserved, and diverse communities.
Given that there is a Black woman inthe race who has both extensive and
relevant experience as a U.S. Attorneyand in the City Attorney's office, and

(52:32):
lived experience that reflects concernsheld by many of those communities,
how do you reconcile your decision tostay in the race instead of stepping
aside to support her candidacy?
I'm running for this raceas a public defender.
And I chose to be a public defenderafter leaving private practice,

(52:54):
where I worked at a law firmcalled Davis Wright Tremaine.
And the reason that I left thatlaw firm was that I was one of the
associates that sort of gravitatedmore and more toward pro bono work.
And the pro bono work that I lovedthe most and did incessantly was
representing people that wereexperiencing criminal convictions

(53:16):
- the first person I represented wassentenced to 76 years in prison for
a crime he committed when he was 18.
I left the firm to become a publicdefender because I care about individual
rights and individual liberties.
And I don't believe thatsomeone is defined by

(53:40):
one thing they did.
And that everyone should be givengrace and given a shot at redemption
and recovery and rehabilitation.
So those are the reasons thatI became a public defender.
And I can tell you, as a public defender,my clients are highly disproportionately
not folks that look like me.

(54:02):
They're not folks that have my background.
They're not folks thathave my economic privilege.
And what I've found is that there isso much injustice that's happening in
the criminal legal system on a regularbasis that's just cruel and racist, and

(54:27):
preying upon economic injustice,generational disadvantage.
And I'm coming to this race becauseI am bringing that experience to it.
And I'm looking at a prosecutor's officeand how to change that prosecutor's role.

(54:49):
How can we reform a prosecutor'soffice, and how can we do it that's
in an effective way and to eliminatethe pointless cruelty that happens
on a daily basis in that system?
So I'm bringing a backgroundof representing people that are
disadvantaged, that are experiencingharm on a daily basis - victims of

(55:15):
crimes, too, not just my clients,victims of crimes, too - who are also
similarly disproportionate in theirdemographics and economic disadvantage.
So I think that having that perspectiveis so critical, because I see firsthand

(55:35):
all of the ways that the traditionalmethod of prosecution has failed.
And I think we need a public defenderin that role for that reason - who
has seen tangibly and daily how oftenthat fails and how ineffective it is.
So I'm running and I'm staying inthis race - because I believe in

(55:56):
bringing meaningful change to the CityAttorney's Office and interrupting
the cycle of sort of pointlesscruelty that I see on a daily basis.
Now, this is me interjectinga follow-up question here.
How do you respond to people whoconsider public defenders to be allied

(56:20):
with criminals, and helping to getpeople off who deserve punishment,
and being part of the problem?
How do you respond to that?
I'm a public defender whocares about public safety.
I love Seattle and I don't likehaving to sort of avoid certain

(56:44):
areas of the city when I'm walkingdown the street with my kids.
I don't like having to cross the streetwhen there's folks that are using
drugs like fentanyl on the sidewalk.
Those are crises that are happeningon a daily basis in Seattle.

(57:11):
I'm coming at this from a place where Ican see there's a need for prosecution
in certain situations - there is.
We don't have the infrastructurein our society to do away with
prosecution - that's absolutelysomething that's necessary.
And if it's going to exist - ifprosecution is going to

(57:35):
exist, I want it to work.
I'm part of the system, too.
I'm a public defender, so when myclients plead guilty to a crime
because they want to get out of jail,I'm the one sitting next to them
enabling that process to happen.
So I'm part of the system, too.
But we need to change it because thecurrent approach is just not working.

(58:01):
And I think bringing a public defender'sperspective to prosecution is so
critical in a place, especially likethe Seattle City Attorney's Office,
where - like, look, the folks that aregetting prosecuted by the City Attorney's
Office, like it or not for anybody,they're going to get out of jail.
They're going to be back in thecommunity very, very, very soon

(58:23):
- because the misdemeanor punishmentsystem does not include things like
long-term prison or what have you.
So, you know, we have no choice otherthan to make it better if we want to
actually see any meaningful progress.
And so, you know, I'm not soft on crime.

(58:45):
I want to be, you know, as KamalaHarris said, smart on crime.
You know, it's a system that's goingto exist, it's going to keep existing.
So what can we do with it to make itactually effective and less harmful?
Now the next question is from youropponent, Rory O'Sullivan, and he asks: My

(59:07):
goal in this campaign is to ensure we havea progressive City Attorney who reflects
the values of the City of Seattle.
As such, I have directed my campaign staffand volunteers to refrain from engaging
in negative campaigning against you andI have made the same commitment myself.
Are you willing to refrain fromnegative campaigning against your

(59:28):
progressive opponents in the primary?
Yes.
And I'll say this - not only toinclude Erika, but to include
Rory as well - of course.
I
volunteered in law school as an intakevolunteer at the Housing Justice Project

(59:53):
in 2010 - that's an organization that Roryeventually became the Managing Partner of.
So there's no question that, you know,Erika, Rory, and I all share similar, you
know, goals and values and progressiveaims for the City Attorney's Office.

(01:00:16):
And so the reason I got into thisrace to be[gin] with was because I
didn't think that Ann Davison wasgoing to be an effective leader for
Seattle and I wanted to change that.
So I think we all share that goal, soI don't see any value in denigrating

(01:00:37):
my similarly progressive challengers
to Ann Davison.
So, yeah, I'll commit to doing that.
Now back to the generalquestions - this is from us again.
One thing that we don't talk enoughabout, I think, is management experience
when you're going into this office- that's going to require managing

(01:01:00):
hundreds of staff, over 100 attorneys.
What experience do you have that shouldgive voters the confidence that you can
manage the staff and work of the office,work with law enforcement partners, work
with stakeholders in the community andimpacted people in order to accomplish
everything you've talked about?

(01:01:21):
And that's a good question.
I answered your question earlierabout, you know, management.
I have not sort of managed a largeorganization before, so I would be doing
that from the current experience I have.
The reason that my current experienceis going to be successful for that is

(01:01:42):
number one - as a public defender, I justspent two and a half years in the Felony
Unit of King County Defender's Office.
And, you know, at one point, I thinkI had 80 open felony cases - that
requires an immense amount of managementand, you know, serving lots and lots

(01:02:08):
of different people, working with,you know, investigators, paralegals,
legal assistants, you know, interfacingwith all manner of prosecutors.
I'm talking to police officers as partof our investigations, dealing with, you
know, judges, juries, you know, everyactor in the criminal legal system.

(01:02:32):
So, you know, I think that my experiencemanaging my caseload, I think, is going
to be a useful experience for steppinginto an organization where there are
many people to interface with and manage.
You know, I've also - so I'vedirectly overseen staff, just

(01:02:53):
not in large numbers before.
So, you know, managing legal staff,interns, you know, co-counsel.
I've done that, you know, for a longtime in my career as a litigator.
I've also worked at, you know, I've alwaysworked at large organizations - Department

(01:03:15):
of Public Defense is a large organization,Davis Wright Tremaine is a large law firm.
And when I was a litigator at DavisWright Tremaine, I worked with a
large number of people as well.
And I think that I'm going to be ableto bring that experience to this role
in a way that will be successful.

(01:03:37):
Our final question today - for voterswho are looking for an alternative
to the incumbent, why should theychoose you over the other challengers?
My experience includes both criminallegal experience as a public defender and
large-scale civil litigation experience.

(01:03:58):
So the City Attorney's Office has aCriminal Division, and a Civil Division,
and an Administrative Division.
I think the civil and criminaldivisions are going to be places where
my experience is very, very valuable.
So I have experience in both spaces - asa hardworking public defender, as well
as civil litigator at large firms.

(01:04:21):
I have lots of federallitigation experience as well.
I practiced at Davis Wright Tremaine,largely in the federal litigation
space, for about five years.
And then I also clerked for two federaljudges - one at the United States
Court of Appeals and one in WesternDistrict of Washington, here in Seattle.

(01:04:44):
And that experience of handlingfederal litigation is going to
be critical at a time when we'redealing with lawsuits against the
Trump administration and the like.
So my experience of handlingcriminal cases and civil cases
equips me to do both thosejobs very, very well.

(01:05:07):
I'm also, again, I'm not a prosecutor.
I'm a public defender.
And what I have to offer as away of reforming the prosecutor's
office is that experience - seeingday in and day out - all the ways
that justice in Seattle is failing.
And I want to bring that to the CityAttorney's Office to make it an effective

(01:05:30):
leader in achieving meaningful publicsafety and interrupting the root
causes of what we see perpetuatingthis cycle of crime in Seattle.
So I do think that I am the bestcandidate for this role, and I'm
excited to keep working toward that.
Well, that wraps up our conversation.

(01:05:50):
Thank you for taking the time toshare your perspective with us, what
your priorities are, and how you'dlead the City Attorney's Office.
As we've discussed, this officeholds significant influence over how
Seattle approaches public safety,accountability, and civil rights.
And the choices made here affectpeople and communities across
the city every single day.

(01:06:12):
Thank you for your time andbeing accountable to voters and
talking in detail about whatyour beliefs and positions are.

And to our listeners: thank you for joining us. (01:06:20):
undefined
Please stay informed, stayengaged, and, above all - make
your voice count in this election.
Thanks and we'll talk to you next time.
Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks,which is produced by Shannon Cheng.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.

(01:06:43):
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on everypodcast service and app - just type
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, leave areview wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.

(01:07:07):
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
time.