May 2, 2025 • 35 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Robert Cruickshank discuss:
📊 Breakdown of Legislature's state budget
🧐 Ferguson’s first four months
🤔 Mallahan can? What's up with Seattle mayor race
🚔 SPD hiring up but few women + another lawsuit alleging racism
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 today’s co-host, Robert Cruickshank, on Bluesky at @robertcruickshank.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:22):
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.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show,I chatted with Seattle City Attorney
candidate Rory O'Sullivan about hisvision for transformative change in an
(00:42):
office he believes has gone in the wrongdirection under City Attorney Ann Davison.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend of theshow and today's co-host: chair of Sierra
Club Seattle, longtime communications andpolitical strategist, Robert Cruickshank.
(01:03):
Hey, thanks for havingme back on, Crystal.
Absolutely.
Well, to start out, we just saw the end ofthe legislative session with a significant
budget that has implications for alot of people and areas in our state.
So let's start with a breakdown ofwhat wound up in the budget passed
(01:25):
by our Washington Legislature.
Yeah, it is a mix of cuts and revenuesthat does not include, of course,
the big wealth tax that had been thecenterpiece of a lot of the revenue
conversation - really the budgetconversation ever since outgoing Governor
Inslee proposed one way back in December.
(01:45):
Bob Ferguson, in one of his first pressconferences in January - even before
he was sworn in - said he didn't wanta wealth tax and he might veto it.
And he kept issuing thatthreat again and again.
The problem is, he never reallycame out to explain what he
did want out of a budget.
And so legislators were left to cobbletogether a budget that includes some
(02:06):
increases in taxes on big businesses- big tech will pay a little bit more,
Tesla's going to pay a little bit more.
But you're also seeing things like agas tax increase and other fees are
going up, such as like at state parks.
Along with some cuts across the board- 5% at higher education, for example.
Also, some really notable cuts thatare drawing a lot of attention,
(02:28):
such as slashing in half thestate's funding to support abortion
services that was created a coupleyears ago after the Dobbs decision.
I saw former state Senator ReuvenCarlyle this morning on social media
complaining about a cut to Treehouse,which is a program that provides
services for foster care kids.
There's headlines in The Seattle Timestoday about Dolly Parton's library, which
(02:51):
she has helped promote - giving freebooks to kids around the country, set
one up in Washington state a few yearsago - the Legislature is defunding that.
And significant concerns being voiced byeducation leaders, school superintendents
and administrators - pointing out that therevenues and spending for public education
(03:11):
is very minimal and may not do much atall to help school districts climb out of
the budget hole that many of them are in.
And so you're at this weird place- and I can't forget, sorry - a gas
tax increase of about six cents pergallon, which will largely go to
mega projects such as Highway 509 inSeaTac, the 167 connection between I-5
(03:34):
and Puyallup, and things like that.
And so, what legislators have essentiallydone is cobbled together a budget with
some tax increases that are going toannoy voters - without the big wealth tax,
that will make the system look fairer.
And with spending priorities thatdon't really put much money into
schools - which are super popular- with a lot of really unpopular cuts.
(03:58):
And so the Legislature got thisdone - they got out of town on
schedule on Sunday and dropped it allin Ferguson's lap, who has not really
said what he's going to do with it.
So the session is over, but no onereally knows what happens from here.
The budget is unpopular.
It's going to make theLegislature unpopular.
Ferguson doesn't reallyhave many great options.
(04:19):
He could veto the budget and calllegislators back into session.
But if he does that withoutproposing a wealth tax, what exactly
are they supposed to do instead?
So cobbled this thing together - livewith it for a couple years while
seeing what federal cuts come,while seeing what happens to the
economy thanks to Trump's tariffs.
(04:39):
And I think - just looking at this,hearing from legislators, seeing what
they're saying privately and publicly,talking to anyone who advocated for
a public service at all in Olympiathis year - nobody's happy with it.
Everyone's leaving really frustrated.
Well, leaving frustrated - youmake a great point about not
being sure what Governor Fergusonis going to do with this.
(05:00):
And there's also another option beyondjust vetoing the entire budget or not.
Our governor has the ability to line-itemveto elements of the budget that was
passed and elements of legislation.
How could this impact what happens?
And what exactly is a line-item veto?
Why do we have that?
(05:21):
Sure.
So many states have given theirgovernor the ability to veto parts of
a bill rather than the entire thing,particularly a budget - where a governor
can say, I veto this spending item.
Let's say that the Legislature sayswe're going to spend $10 million
on a road project somewhere.
(05:42):
The governor would have the abilityto say - I veto that, but not
the entire transportation budget.
I veto this particular piece ofspending, but not the entire budget.
There was an attempt in the 1990sto give the President of the United
States that power, but Supreme Courtruled that to be unconstitutional.
But other states dohave that, including us.
And so this raises the real possibilitythat there may be things in the budget
(06:04):
that were included to get enough votesso it passed - whether it's a revenue
item or a spending item - with thekind of understanding that Ferguson
might strip it out in a line-item veto.
But this is all, again, part of theunknown - the great unknown - that is
happening right now with Olympia, whereFerguson has not really communicated
to the public what he wants.
(06:26):
Hearing from legislators who arespeaking - again, out to The Seattle
Times this week - publicly saying theydon't really know what Ferguson wants.
There's just this air of uncertaintyabout what is going to happen with
this budget, and so I don't thinkanyone really feels settled right now.
So stepping back a little bit and seeingwhat the larger conversation was when this
(06:47):
started and kind of will continue afterthis session, what are the consequences
of not implementing a wealth tax?
How have we seen that impact these budgetconversations, and who's asked to pay?
I think it's a huge failure.
Because what is happening is we're justdoubling down on our regressive tax
system, where most of the taxes thatare going up are on working people.
(07:12):
There are some increases on wealthy folks- this is true - but nothing substantial
like a wealth tax would have brought in.
And what you're seeing here, really, isa failure to grapple with the central
crisis of our state's revenue system.
I was doing some research on this andwrote something for Northwest Progressive
Institute last week, and I didn'trealize this until I looked at it.
(07:33):
A hundred years ago, the WashingtonState Grange, which is an organization
of farmers who were very politicallyactive in the early 20th century,
proposed what is now the wealth tax.
This wealth tax we talk about istechnically a financial intangibles
tax on investments, stocks, bonds,and other financial vehicles.
Well, the Grange was talking aboutthis a hundred years ago - they put
(07:54):
an initiative on the ballot in 1928to create this tax to fund schools.
It got 48% and narrowly failed.
They came back - in 1932, at thedepths of the Great Depression
- added in an income tax that wasgraduated, so the rich paid more.
That passed with 70%.
But the next year, a right-wingstate Supreme Court overturned it.
(08:14):
And in 1933, the state cobbledtogether the sales tax, the property
tax, the B&O tax - the businessand occupations gross receipts tax.
And the only reason that worked isbecause that also came at the same time
as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal - themassive increase of federal spending.
So the state wasn't being asked to payfor highways - for interstate highways.
(08:37):
They weren't being askedto fund higher education.
They weren't being asked to fundSocial Security and Medicare.
The federal government was suddenlystepping in and spending all this money.
And that allowed our state's tax systemto sort of stagger along - this rickety
thing that looked like it might collapseat any moment, but it didn't because
federal spending made it possible.
(08:57):
That's going away.
Trump and Musk, and their allies inCongress among the Republicans have made
it very, very clear - that's going away.
And then our prosperity frominternational trade is going away.
So the state has a massive problem.
Its revenue system doesn't work anymore.
The fundamental assumption it's basedon - federal spending - is going away.
And so this would have been theyear when Ferguson is newly elected,
(09:21):
popular at the time he took officewith big Democratic majorities - to
try to do something big to fix that.
Spend his political capital now.
Buy himself some financial breathing roomwith more revenue and take what happens
in the future, but he didn't do that.
And I think he and the Legislature havereally left themselves with a big problem
because they have no wiggle room anymore.
(09:41):
If the budget comes out of balanceagain, you need to turn to a wealth tax,
or they're just going to have to cuteverything - which would be a disaster.
It's really a challenge.
And particularly, you listed allthe things that seemingly were
headwinds for Governor Ferguson.
In addition to a statewide votewhere two-thirds of the state
said - You know, we have a chanceto repeal this capital gains tax.
(10:05):
We definitely do not want to do that.
We support a more equitable, more justtaxation system - where the people at
the top pay more of their fair share.
Now, that doesn't seem to bereflected in the budget that we got.
Additionally, Governor Ferguson talkeda lot about adequately funding education
(10:26):
while he was running for office.
How did we wind up there?
And how does this reflect whatthe Governor has listed as his
priorities - when he was runningand at the beginning of his term?
Well, I mean, this is the argumentthe state has been having for
100 years - even longer, really.
How do you fund public education?
(10:49):
And like I said, when the Grange - 100years ago - was proposing a financial
intangibles tax, it was to fund schools.
And when Dan Evans, the Republicanthree-term governor from the 1960s
and 70s - Bob Ferguson sees asan idol - proposed an income tax.
They went to voters in 1973 andlost - that was to fund public schools.
(11:09):
Fast forward 40 years to the McClearydecision, where the state Supreme Court
ruled that the state was asking schooldistricts to rely on their local levy.
That was wrong - the stateneeded to fund basic education.
They didn't really do that.
The solution they came up with in2017 was inadequate to actually
provide the basic funding that schooldistricts need, so now they're back
(11:30):
to relying on their local levy again.
When the state Senate proposed the wealthtax, it was going to raise $3 billion
- they were giving to K-12 public education.
That's exactly what needed to happen,and it's a proposal that's been on
the table for literally 100 years.
There is no way to actually solvethe school funding crisis with the
revenue system the state has - andthat has been true for over 100 years.
(11:55):
The Seattle Times did polling in October,showing 65% of voters wanted to spend $3
billion more per year on public schools,66% said pay for it with the wealth tax.
So Ferguson had the support neededto do it and chose not to for reasons
known only unto himself, which I thinkis a mistake for our schools - and
honestly, for him politically.
(12:16):
Now, thinking about where he ispolitically now - what does this look
like for him with recent polling?
And what are his prospects moving forward?
He seems to be in political trouble.
A poll came out last week thatshowed his approval rating, which
was around 50% in January whenhe took office, has collapsed.
He now has a 38% approval rating.
(12:37):
Now, he only has a 35% disapprovalrating, so he's not underwater
necessarily - he doesn't have more peopledisapproving of him than approving.
But this isn't very helpful for him.
He's in a place now where hisapproval rating has collapsed, largely
because Democrats and Independentsare no longer supportive of him.
20% drop among Democrats, by the way- from 65% approval to 48% approval.
(13:01):
The public is looking at this,and it's not what they expected.
And I've heard this from a lot ofjust regular voters who said they
remember Ferguson from Trump's firstterm - as a fighter, as a champion.
That's what they expected.
There are a lot of people also whohave moved to Washington state from
red states in the last eight years.
And one of the reasons people do so isthey see Washington as a beacon of freedom
(13:25):
and a place of security from Trump.
And they saw Ferguson - inparticular - when he was Attorney
General, as an example of that.
They were excited for him to be governor.
And he's not delivering on that.
You can look at Governor Tim Walz inMinnesota, Governor JB Pritzker in
Illinois - who are really championingthe resistance against Trump and
governing well in their own states.
(13:46):
Ferguson is just kind of hiding behindhis desk in his office, with a green visor
on and a pencil in his hand, acting likehe's the state's chief accountant - when
what the public needs right now, morethan ever, especially with the unfolding
crisis from Trump, is a leader who's goingto set out a vision, show us how we're
getting there, and rally people behind it.
(14:08):
I think that's what peopleexpected from Ferguson.
He isn't delivering, and I thinkhis popularity is suffering
significantly as a result of that.
Yeah, and what I saw in those pollingresults was really a big warning
for Democrats in Washington state.
Kind of in a similar way as when thePresident is very unpopular - that
drags down everyone lower on theticket - it drags down Congressional
(14:33):
representatives, drags down senators.
Similar way - in our state, Bob Fergusonis the top of the Democratic ticket.
And so you've got folks in theLegislature, you've got a lot of
decently sized suburban cities withmayoral races, city council races
that are Democrats versus Republicansthis year and next year coming up.
(14:54):
And when you look at the drop in supportamong Democrats, those people - as we
recently saw in last year's election- they're not going to switch their
vote to Republican, but they justmay not turn out to vote - period.
That's a problem.
And when you look at where Bob Fergusonhas blunted some of the drop in his
support, it's among Republicans.
(15:15):
And the warning there is theseapproval ratings, including
- Oh, you know, Republicans.
Hey, Republicans arewarming up to Bob Ferguson.
One - should make you raise youreyebrows if you're a Democrat
or calling yourself a Democrat.
But two - it's reallyfake, temporary support.
Because as we see over and overand over again - in every election
(15:39):
- those voters do not actuallyultimately vote for Democrats.
Given a choice between a Democrat who theythink is kind of decent and not as bad
as those other liberals and a Republican- they choose the Republican every time.
And so it's just a real warning sign, Ithink, for Democrats in this state - to
(16:01):
keep going down this path, to not fightto forge more of a direction that's
consistent with what Democratic votersare expecting, or else you may find that
those Democratic voters are not therewhen you need them come election time.
I think that's spot on.
And you saw that last year withthe presidential election - Joe
Biden was deeply unpopular.
(16:23):
And that hurt Democratsrunning for Congress.
And it hurt Kamala Harris, whovery narrowly lost to Trump.
Had Biden not been so unpopularand stepped aside anyway, I
think Harris would have won.
I think Biden was a real anchor there.
And what you're seeing here inWashington state is - it's a state
that wants mainstream Democrats.
(16:45):
Inslee won three terms in a row.
He grew Democratic majoritiesfrom the time he took office to
the time he left office, 12 yearslater - Democrats had much bigger
majorities in the House and Senate.
That's a big accomplishment.
And what that should tell every otherDemocrat, particularly Bob Ferguson,
is that Inslee was onto something.
That what Inslee was doing made sense.
(17:05):
And since taking office, you kindof get the sense from Ferguson that
he was sort of watching Inslee allalong, thinking to himself - Well,
I can do a better job than that.
It turns out he actually couldn't.
He really needs to retool.
Look, this is not uncommon forchief executives filling that
office for the first time - to havesome bumps along the way, for that
job to go not as they expected.
(17:27):
And Ferguson, as we know, has hadreal bumps in his own personal office.
Some of his legislativedirectors have had to leave.
He needs to pivot.
Successful chief executives arewilling to be honest with themselves
about what's gone wrong andwhat needs to happen to fix it.
I don't see that so far from Ferguson.
He seems inclined to justdouble down on things.
(17:47):
And this idea that Republicans are warmingup to him - you are spot on about this.
Washington Republican voterswill never vote for a Democrat.
That's not going to happen.
In 2028, some Republican standard bearerwill come along who says everything
they want to hear, try to replay theTrump playbook, and they will vote
for that person, that guy - let's behonest, it's almost likely to be a
(18:08):
white man - against whatever Democratwe put up, no matter what they've done.
Ferguson will fail towin over Republicans.
He will alienate Democrats and put his ownlegislative majorities at risk in 2026,
and put his own reelection at risk in
2028.
Absolutely.
Was there anything thathappened in this legislative
(18:29):
session that was a bright spot?
There are really good thingsthat did come out of it.
Again, we need Fergusonto sign these bills.
Statewide rent stabilization worked outin the very, very end - with numerous
curveballs and potential derailments,from bad amendments in the state Senate
to all of a sudden on the Friday beforethe end of session, when it turned
(18:51):
out the bill was chaptered poorly andthey had to go back and rewrite the
whole thing and pass it in 48 hours.
But they got it done.
And it's very similar to whatCalifornia and Oregon have.
It's a 7% cap plus inflation, max 10%annual rent growth - that's pretty similar
to what California and Oregon have.
It excludes new construction.
So anyone saying that this particularbill will harm construction of new
(19:13):
housing - that's not been demonstratedin any other state like California
or Oregon under this particular law.
There are other forms ofstricter rent control where
that might happen - not this.
Speaking of building new homes, thetransit-oriented development bill, after
three sessions of wrangling betweenthe House and Senate, finally got done.
Governor Ferguson did say last weekat the Housing Development Consortium
Lunch that he would sign that.
(19:35):
I think that would be a greatbill for him to sign - to build
more housing in transit areas.
Washington will be one of the fewstates to allow striking workers
to collect unemployment benefits.
That's a great win for workers,that's a really huge bright spot.
So those are some of the things thatstand out to me as bright spots, but they
don't have the governor's signature yet.
And I think people are startingto recognize that - whereas with
(19:57):
Inslee, you knew that if it madeit out of the Legislature, it
was highly likely to get signed.
I don't know that we knowthat yet with Ferguson.
We'll see what happens in afew weeks when it comes time
for him to act on these bills.
Absolutely.
Well, we will continue to stay tunedto what happens, keep you updated as
these land on the governor's desk and hedecides what he is going to do with them.
(20:22):
Now, I want to talk about Seattlea bit and the Seattle mayoral race.
And some interesting news that wasreported in PubliCola this week
- that Joe Mallahan is considering- perhaps - talking to some people
about potentially running for mayor.
Now, Joe Mallahan is a name familiarto old people like us and people
(20:42):
who've been around for a while.
Who is he and why is this aninteresting piece of news?
It is.
I can see you smiling and Ihope our listeners can hear you
smiling when we talk about this.
And we'll explain why.
I think of Ryan Packer, the writerat The Urbanist - posted on Bluesky
about this news - the image of Obi-wanfrom Episode 4, saying, Oh, that's a
(21:03):
name I've not heard in a long time.
And that's how I think a lot of uswho've been around Seattle politics
in a while felt when we saw EricaBarnett report that Joe Mallahan is
thinking about running for mayor.
So Joe Mallahan was a corporatebusiness executive who decided to run
for mayor in 2009 when the incumbentmayor, Greg Nickels, was running for
(21:25):
a third term but had grown unpopular.
There are other people who saw thatNickels was unpopular, including Michael
McGinn, who was a progressive activist andurbanist affiliated with the Sierra Club.
But at the time, people thought thatNickels was strong enough to where he
would likely win a close re-election.
But as it turned out, he came in thirdin the top-two primary in August,
(21:46):
behind Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan.
And so the general election that year,in November 2009, was Mallahan versus
McGinn - corporate versus progressive,establishment versus populist.
And Mallahan got a reputation on thecampaign trail as not being very good
at public speaking, kind of not reallyunderstanding the job that well.
(22:06):
And then the firefighters union putout this wild video with firefighters
singing - Mallahan can - like, you know,the Candy Man can, but Mallahan can.
And it just got widely mocked.
And Mallahan got widely mocked for it,even though it wasn't his ad. And so
people look back on this race and thinkof Joe Mallahan as kind of a silly
(22:28):
candidate, but he got 49.5% of the vote.
He very nearly won that race.
Mike McGinn won with 50.5% in2009 and had to work really hard
with a great grassroots fieldoperation to pull out that victory.
And so fast forward here to 2025.
(22:49):
I've been thinking for a while thatI expect some corporate white dude to
show up with a business background andrun for mayor - in part because that's
exactly what happened in San Franciscowith Daniel Lurie, and in Portland
with Keith Wilson - and they both won.
So I have been assuming all springthat at some point we would see some
(23:09):
white male corporate executive showup and say - I'm running for mayor.
I did not expect it to actuallybe Joe Mallahan himself.
And to be clear, he has not actuallyformally announced any campaign
for mayor - it's only a rumor.
But it's an interestingrumor, nonetheless.
It is an interesting rumor.
And I obviously would be interestedto see where he's at on issues today.
(23:32):
Certainly, he was previouslyaligned with the Chamber.
And I think that was part of theproblem with him before, frankly.
I think he wasn't a joke of acandidate, which, you know, it's
easy to look back and especiallysee that "Joe Mallahan can" ad and
think - You know, was this guy kooky?
He was not.
He was a serious candidate, but I thinkit's a challenging alliance, especially
(23:56):
with traditionally Chamber interests.
And at that time, with CASE - a PACthat was directly affiliated with the
Chamber before that got too unpopularfor it to continue - that essentially
the Chamber was running his campaign.
I think he felt like he had lostcontrol of it and you could kind of
see he was not enjoying that situationand being out on the campaign trail.
(24:18):
So I wonder how that wouldinform how he would run now.
But it's really interesting tosee what Mallahan did nail, as did
Mike McGinn - was understandingbefore a lot of other people did
that the incumbent was vulnerable.
Mallahan nailed that.
And so it's interesting to see him again.
(24:39):
And another signal beyond some of thepolling, and especially the recent
social housing vote that Mayor Harrellled, which did not turn out well for
him - and he was the literal face of thaton the campaign and in the literature.
To see Mallahan calling aroundnow with that sense of - this
incumbent is vulnerable.
(25:00):
And I wonder how that's goingto play out in this race.
But certainly really interesting to see.
It is interesting.
And it comes at the end of amonth of April in which the
mayor's race was eerily quiet.
We didn't see new candidates jumpin, and I would have expected that.
Filing week starts next week?
(25:21):
Next week, next week.
Next week.
And that doesn't leave a greatdeal of time for people to
launch a mayoral campaign.
We know Harrell is vulnerable - notjust because Crystal and Robert
think he's vulnerable - pollingshows he is vulnerable.
His disapproval rating is muchhigher than his approval rating,
and his approval rating hasconsistently gone down over time.
So I think Katie Wilson is runninga great campaign for mayor - sees
(25:44):
that Harrell is vulnerable.
But some of the groups that have beenbacking Harrell to date, including
some big unions and the Chamber ofCommerce, have stuck by Harrell.
But you wonder how longthat's going to last.
There is this opening forsomeone else to jump in.
I still expect someone to look at whathappened in San Francisco and Portland
last year - two other West Coastcities with public discontent with the
(26:09):
incumbent regime - and think there isan opportunity there because there is.
Now, would it be Joe Mallahanhimself or someone else?
Who knows?
And they may run as Keith Wilson andDaniel Lurie did - on their own, without
the initial backing of the Chamber.
Someone may have to show up andconvince them with the strength of
their campaign - that this is doable.
But while this mayoral campaign has beeneerily quiet over the last four weeks,
(26:32):
I don't know that it's going to stayquiet between now and filing deadline.
Yeah, I would expect to seesome activity - we'll see there.
And you raise a good point thatthose candidates that we saw
in other cities ran without theinitial support of the Chamber.
Joe Mallahan, in 2009, ran withoutthe initial support of the Chamber
(26:53):
and those business-aligned interests.
They were sticking by Greg Nickels.
And it was only once Greg Nickels had lostin the primary and the general election
came, that the Chamber kind of swoopedin and said - Oh, Mallahan's now our guy.
We're going with him.
We're putting together atable to run this thing.
And it headed down that path.
So it'll be reallyinteresting to see here.
(27:16):
Where do you see the opportunitiesin this mayor's race?
I mean, I think there is anopportunity for someone to run as
a mainstream progressive candidate.
Seattle is obviously to the left ofthe state as a whole, but not always
as far left as we sometimes think.
There is a significant moderate blockin the city - moderate for Seattle.
And I think Katie Wilson is clearlytrying to target that and recognizes
(27:38):
that that's the reality of how to win.
And I think that is correct.
There is a widespread discontentwith the direction of the city and
a sense that Harrell is not reallygetting the job done very well.
And that was even before some ofthe recent scandals that came out
about how he's running his office.
So I think the opportunityis very much there.
This feels like 2009 to me, in whichthe incumbent is more vulnerable
(28:02):
than some of his big backers realize.
And those who recognize that andare willing to act on it are the
ones who are going to benefit.
Absolutely.
This does have 2009 vibes.
Now, you just alluded to scandalsthat the Harrell administration
has been dealing with.
We just got news this past week thatthere's another lawsuit from two
(28:24):
Black officers suing the SeattlePolice Department - alleging racism.
And that one of Harrell's biggestpromises to hire officers is finally
accelerating a little bit - they'regetting some more hiring done.
But unfortunately, SPD is losingwomen from the department faster
than they can hire to replace them.
(28:45):
What's happening here?
Why are there not many womenjoining the department, which
is one of their stated goals?
What's the challenge?
Well, I mean, you'vehit it on the head here.
There is a huge problemin SPD with sexism.
There's a huge problem in SPD with racism.
(29:06):
And not just towards thepublic, but within the ranks.
And there have been numerous lawsuitsfiled by women in the force about sexism
within SPD, many of them women of color.
And there are now more lawsuitsfrom other Black officers.
And earlier this week, Harrellhad a press conference to tout new
(29:28):
hiring numbers at SPD - we've gotsomething like 60 new officers.
And people pointed at the photoand like - they're all men.
Where are all the women?
And it's really clear that Harrell and SPDappear to have decided that hitting that
number is more important than ensuringyou're hitting it in the right way.
(29:49):
That if hiring the number of officersthey want means - Yeah, a bunch of them
are going to be men and we're going tocontinue to tolerate sexism within the
ranks, and we're not really going to domuch about the allegations of racism.
Gosh, we're hitting those numbers.
That kind of seems to me to bewhat the decision has been made
at the highest levels of the city.
(30:10):
And that just reinforcesthe problem we have.
There is widespread publicsupport for hiring more officers.
As much as I think some of theabolitionists left understandably don't
want that, that is where the public is.
But the public is not in a placewhere - hire more officers and
we don't care how you do it.
The public, I think, in this city,cares very much how you do it.
(30:31):
I don't think there's public supportfor having a racist police force.
I don't think there's public supportfor having a sexist police force.
And yet that is what we are - havebeen dealing with with SPD
for a very, very long time.
And it is continuing to be the case, withthe Harrell administration tolerating it.
(30:52):
It's a real challenge.
And as this most recent lawsuit wasreported - by The Seattle Times - they
gave a little recap to say in thesepast just two years, "have also seen
lawsuits from four female officers, apolice lieutenant, a veteran detective,
an assistant chief, and a formercandidate for chief - all alleging
(31:16):
some form of discrimination." Andthis is just within the department.
Former police chief Adrian Diaz,additionally, who is also named in
several of those lawsuits, filed hisown tort claim against the city for
$10 million, alleging he was wrongfullydemoted and discriminated against.
When you look at just this avalanche oflawsuits and litigation, what organization
(31:43):
does not have people crying out forchange and reform that sees a mountain
of litigation over a couple years?
Any organizational CEO, even in thisenvironment that we're in - that we
see bad behavior all the time - thisis the kind of stuff that impacts the
bottom line at any other organization.
(32:03):
This is the stuff that completelytears through a quality workforce and
forces out people doing the best work.
This is not sustainable for any otherkind of organization, and this is the kind
of activity that demands accountability.
Where does the buck stop with this?
Why is this not being - not only fixed,but addressed at all by anyone in power?
(32:30):
We have these recruitingconversations that just talk about
- Well, we need some more money.
We need to lower or modifyour hiring standards.
We need just to havesome more benefits there.
- when they're ignoring the giganticelephant in the room that says
there is a massive cultural problemhere that needs to be addressed.
(32:53):
And you have people shouting from high andlow and potential candidates saying - Hey,
I'm an officer in another jurisdiction.
I'm a woman who would consider this, whowants to help my community in this way.
And there's no way I would look atthis organization and say - That's
a place where I would feel safe,respected, like there's a real
space and opportunity for me.
(33:14):
Why are they continuingto just not address this?
Yeah, I mean, you have to keep in mindthat one of the mayor's top advisors
on public safety is Tim Burgess, who isa conservative white male former cop.
Who I think very much alignshimself - and always has - with this
approach of give the cops whateverthey want, that the job of City Hall
(33:38):
is to enable rather than oversee.
And I think that's one of the reasonswe're in this mess that we're in.
You're going to struggle toretain good officers if the
working conditions are bad.
And that's what's happening here.
It was easy for them to blame "Defund thePolice." It was easy for them to blame
progressives and the former city council.
(34:00):
But the reality is, SPD's recruitmentproblem is of its own making.
They've created a hostile work environmentand are chasing good people away.
Well, we see this as the top lineof - hey, there're finally new
officers, and it's a big success.
But I really worry, frankly, about whatthese people are walking into and what
(34:22):
we're going to see as a public from this.
But we'll continue to followthis and see what results, see
if this is addressed in any way.
But we certainly thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, May 2nd, 2025.
Can you believe it is May already?
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today waschair of Sierra Club Seattle,
(34:44):
longtime communications and politicalstrategist Robert Cruickshank.
You can find Robert on Blueskyat @robertcruickshank.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
(35:06):
Be sure to subscribe to get thepodcast and the full versions of
our Friday week-in-review showsand our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leave usa review wherever you listen - it
helps us out tremendously.
You can also get a full transcript ofthis episode and links to the references
and resources that we talked about inthe show at officialhacksandwonks.com.
(35:30):
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:22):
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.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show,I chatted with Seattle City Attorney
candidate Rory O'Sullivan about hisvision for transformative change in an
(00:42):
office he believes has gone in the wrongdirection under City Attorney Ann Davison.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend of theshow and today's co-host: chair of Sierra
Club Seattle, longtime communications andpolitical strategist, Robert Cruickshank.
(01:03):
Hey, thanks for havingme back on, Crystal.
Absolutely.
Well, to start out, we just saw the end ofthe legislative session with a significant
budget that has implications for alot of people and areas in our state.
So let's start with a breakdown ofwhat wound up in the budget passed
(01:25):
by our Washington Legislature.
Yeah, it is a mix of cuts and revenuesthat does not include, of course,
the big wealth tax that had been thecenterpiece of a lot of the revenue
conversation - really the budgetconversation ever since outgoing Governor
Inslee proposed one way back in December.
(01:45):
Bob Ferguson, in one of his first pressconferences in January - even before
he was sworn in - said he didn't wanta wealth tax and he might veto it.
And he kept issuing thatthreat again and again.
The problem is, he never reallycame out to explain what he
did want out of a budget.
And so legislators were left to cobbletogether a budget that includes some
(02:06):
increases in taxes on big businesses- big tech will pay a little bit more,
Tesla's going to pay a little bit more.
But you're also seeing things like agas tax increase and other fees are
going up, such as like at state parks.
Along with some cuts across the board- 5% at higher education, for example.
Also, some really notable cuts thatare drawing a lot of attention,
(02:28):
such as slashing in half thestate's funding to support abortion
services that was created a coupleyears ago after the Dobbs decision.
I saw former state Senator ReuvenCarlyle this morning on social media
complaining about a cut to Treehouse,which is a program that provides
services for foster care kids.
There's headlines in The Seattle Timestoday about Dolly Parton's library, which
(02:51):
she has helped promote - giving freebooks to kids around the country, set
one up in Washington state a few yearsago - the Legislature is defunding that.
And significant concerns being voiced byeducation leaders, school superintendents
and administrators - pointing out that therevenues and spending for public education
(03:11):
is very minimal and may not do much atall to help school districts climb out of
the budget hole that many of them are in.
And so you're at this weird place- and I can't forget, sorry - a gas
tax increase of about six cents pergallon, which will largely go to
mega projects such as Highway 509 inSeaTac, the 167 connection between I-5
(03:34):
and Puyallup, and things like that.
And so, what legislators have essentiallydone is cobbled together a budget with
some tax increases that are going toannoy voters - without the big wealth tax,
that will make the system look fairer.
And with spending priorities thatdon't really put much money into
schools - which are super popular- with a lot of really unpopular cuts.
(03:58):
And so the Legislature got thisdone - they got out of town on
schedule on Sunday and dropped it allin Ferguson's lap, who has not really
said what he's going to do with it.
So the session is over, but no onereally knows what happens from here.
The budget is unpopular.
It's going to make theLegislature unpopular.
Ferguson doesn't reallyhave many great options.
(04:19):
He could veto the budget and calllegislators back into session.
But if he does that withoutproposing a wealth tax, what exactly
are they supposed to do instead?
So cobbled this thing together - livewith it for a couple years while
seeing what federal cuts come,while seeing what happens to the
economy thanks to Trump's tariffs.
(04:39):
And I think - just looking at this,hearing from legislators, seeing what
they're saying privately and publicly,talking to anyone who advocated for
a public service at all in Olympiathis year - nobody's happy with it.
Everyone's leaving really frustrated.
Well, leaving frustrated - youmake a great point about not
being sure what Governor Fergusonis going to do with this.
(05:00):
And there's also another option beyondjust vetoing the entire budget or not.
Our governor has the ability to line-itemveto elements of the budget that was
passed and elements of legislation.
How could this impact what happens?
And what exactly is a line-item veto?
Why do we have that?
(05:21):
Sure.
So many states have given theirgovernor the ability to veto parts of
a bill rather than the entire thing,particularly a budget - where a governor
can say, I veto this spending item.
Let's say that the Legislature sayswe're going to spend $10 million
on a road project somewhere.
(05:42):
The governor would have the abilityto say - I veto that, but not
the entire transportation budget.
I veto this particular piece ofspending, but not the entire budget.
There was an attempt in the 1990sto give the President of the United
States that power, but Supreme Courtruled that to be unconstitutional.
But other states dohave that, including us.
And so this raises the real possibilitythat there may be things in the budget
(06:04):
that were included to get enough votesso it passed - whether it's a revenue
item or a spending item - with thekind of understanding that Ferguson
might strip it out in a line-item veto.
But this is all, again, part of theunknown - the great unknown - that is
happening right now with Olympia, whereFerguson has not really communicated
to the public what he wants.
(06:26):
Hearing from legislators who arespeaking - again, out to The Seattle
Times this week - publicly saying theydon't really know what Ferguson wants.
There's just this air of uncertaintyabout what is going to happen with
this budget, and so I don't thinkanyone really feels settled right now.
So stepping back a little bit and seeingwhat the larger conversation was when this
(06:47):
started and kind of will continue afterthis session, what are the consequences
of not implementing a wealth tax?
How have we seen that impact these budgetconversations, and who's asked to pay?
I think it's a huge failure.
Because what is happening is we're justdoubling down on our regressive tax
system, where most of the taxes thatare going up are on working people.
(07:12):
There are some increases on wealthy folks- this is true - but nothing substantial
like a wealth tax would have brought in.
And what you're seeing here, really, isa failure to grapple with the central
crisis of our state's revenue system.
I was doing some research on this andwrote something for Northwest Progressive
Institute last week, and I didn'trealize this until I looked at it.
(07:33):
A hundred years ago, the WashingtonState Grange, which is an organization
of farmers who were very politicallyactive in the early 20th century,
proposed what is now the wealth tax.
This wealth tax we talk about istechnically a financial intangibles
tax on investments, stocks, bonds,and other financial vehicles.
Well, the Grange was talking aboutthis a hundred years ago - they put
(07:54):
an initiative on the ballot in 1928to create this tax to fund schools.
It got 48% and narrowly failed.
They came back - in 1932, at thedepths of the Great Depression
- added in an income tax that wasgraduated, so the rich paid more.
That passed with 70%.
But the next year, a right-wingstate Supreme Court overturned it.
(08:14):
And in 1933, the state cobbledtogether the sales tax, the property
tax, the B&O tax - the businessand occupations gross receipts tax.
And the only reason that worked isbecause that also came at the same time
as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal - themassive increase of federal spending.
So the state wasn't being asked to payfor highways - for interstate highways.
(08:37):
They weren't being askedto fund higher education.
They weren't being asked to fundSocial Security and Medicare.
The federal government was suddenlystepping in and spending all this money.
And that allowed our state's tax systemto sort of stagger along - this rickety
thing that looked like it might collapseat any moment, but it didn't because
federal spending made it possible.
(08:57):
That's going away.
Trump and Musk, and their allies inCongress among the Republicans have made
it very, very clear - that's going away.
And then our prosperity frominternational trade is going away.
So the state has a massive problem.
Its revenue system doesn't work anymore.
The fundamental assumption it's basedon - federal spending - is going away.
And so this would have been theyear when Ferguson is newly elected,
(09:21):
popular at the time he took officewith big Democratic majorities - to
try to do something big to fix that.
Spend his political capital now.
Buy himself some financial breathing roomwith more revenue and take what happens
in the future, but he didn't do that.
And I think he and the Legislature havereally left themselves with a big problem
because they have no wiggle room anymore.
(09:41):
If the budget comes out of balanceagain, you need to turn to a wealth tax,
or they're just going to have to cuteverything - which would be a disaster.
It's really a challenge.
And particularly, you listed allthe things that seemingly were
headwinds for Governor Ferguson.
In addition to a statewide votewhere two-thirds of the state
said - You know, we have a chanceto repeal this capital gains tax.
(10:05):
We definitely do not want to do that.
We support a more equitable, more justtaxation system - where the people at
the top pay more of their fair share.
Now, that doesn't seem to bereflected in the budget that we got.
Additionally, Governor Ferguson talkeda lot about adequately funding education
(10:26):
while he was running for office.
How did we wind up there?
And how does this reflect whatthe Governor has listed as his
priorities - when he was runningand at the beginning of his term?
Well, I mean, this is the argumentthe state has been having for
100 years - even longer, really.
How do you fund public education?
(10:49):
And like I said, when the Grange - 100years ago - was proposing a financial
intangibles tax, it was to fund schools.
And when Dan Evans, the Republicanthree-term governor from the 1960s
and 70s - Bob Ferguson sees asan idol - proposed an income tax.
They went to voters in 1973 andlost - that was to fund public schools.
(11:09):
Fast forward 40 years to the McClearydecision, where the state Supreme Court
ruled that the state was asking schooldistricts to rely on their local levy.
That was wrong - the stateneeded to fund basic education.
They didn't really do that.
The solution they came up with in2017 was inadequate to actually
provide the basic funding that schooldistricts need, so now they're back
(11:30):
to relying on their local levy again.
When the state Senate proposed the wealthtax, it was going to raise $3 billion
- they were giving to K-12 public education.
That's exactly what needed to happen,and it's a proposal that's been on
the table for literally 100 years.
There is no way to actually solvethe school funding crisis with the
revenue system the state has - andthat has been true for over 100 years.
(11:55):
The Seattle Times did polling in October,showing 65% of voters wanted to spend $3
billion more per year on public schools,66% said pay for it with the wealth tax.
So Ferguson had the support neededto do it and chose not to for reasons
known only unto himself, which I thinkis a mistake for our schools - and
honestly, for him politically.
(12:16):
Now, thinking about where he ispolitically now - what does this look
like for him with recent polling?
And what are his prospects moving forward?
He seems to be in political trouble.
A poll came out last week thatshowed his approval rating, which
was around 50% in January whenhe took office, has collapsed.
He now has a 38% approval rating.
(12:37):
Now, he only has a 35% disapprovalrating, so he's not underwater
necessarily - he doesn't have more peopledisapproving of him than approving.
But this isn't very helpful for him.
He's in a place now where hisapproval rating has collapsed, largely
because Democrats and Independentsare no longer supportive of him.
20% drop among Democrats, by the way- from 65% approval to 48% approval.
(13:01):
The public is looking at this,and it's not what they expected.
And I've heard this from a lot ofjust regular voters who said they
remember Ferguson from Trump's firstterm - as a fighter, as a champion.
That's what they expected.
There are a lot of people also whohave moved to Washington state from
red states in the last eight years.
And one of the reasons people do so isthey see Washington as a beacon of freedom
(13:25):
and a place of security from Trump.
And they saw Ferguson - inparticular - when he was Attorney
General, as an example of that.
They were excited for him to be governor.
And he's not delivering on that.
You can look at Governor Tim Walz inMinnesota, Governor JB Pritzker in
Illinois - who are really championingthe resistance against Trump and
governing well in their own states.
(13:46):
Ferguson is just kind of hiding behindhis desk in his office, with a green visor
on and a pencil in his hand, acting likehe's the state's chief accountant - when
what the public needs right now, morethan ever, especially with the unfolding
crisis from Trump, is a leader who's goingto set out a vision, show us how we're
getting there, and rally people behind it.
(14:08):
I think that's what peopleexpected from Ferguson.
He isn't delivering, and I thinkhis popularity is suffering
significantly as a result of that.
Yeah, and what I saw in those pollingresults was really a big warning
for Democrats in Washington state.
Kind of in a similar way as when thePresident is very unpopular - that
drags down everyone lower on theticket - it drags down Congressional
(14:33):
representatives, drags down senators.
Similar way - in our state, Bob Fergusonis the top of the Democratic ticket.
And so you've got folks in theLegislature, you've got a lot of
decently sized suburban cities withmayoral races, city council races
that are Democrats versus Republicansthis year and next year coming up.
(14:54):
And when you look at the drop in supportamong Democrats, those people - as we
recently saw in last year's election- they're not going to switch their
vote to Republican, but they justmay not turn out to vote - period.
That's a problem.
And when you look at where Bob Fergusonhas blunted some of the drop in his
support, it's among Republicans.
(15:15):
And the warning there is theseapproval ratings, including
- Oh, you know, Republicans.
Hey, Republicans arewarming up to Bob Ferguson.
One - should make you raise youreyebrows if you're a Democrat
or calling yourself a Democrat.
But two - it's reallyfake, temporary support.
Because as we see over and overand over again - in every election
(15:39):
- those voters do not actuallyultimately vote for Democrats.
Given a choice between a Democrat who theythink is kind of decent and not as bad
as those other liberals and a Republican- they choose the Republican every time.
And so it's just a real warning sign, Ithink, for Democrats in this state - to
(16:01):
keep going down this path, to not fightto forge more of a direction that's
consistent with what Democratic votersare expecting, or else you may find that
those Democratic voters are not therewhen you need them come election time.
I think that's spot on.
And you saw that last year withthe presidential election - Joe
Biden was deeply unpopular.
(16:23):
And that hurt Democratsrunning for Congress.
And it hurt Kamala Harris, whovery narrowly lost to Trump.
Had Biden not been so unpopularand stepped aside anyway, I
think Harris would have won.
I think Biden was a real anchor there.
And what you're seeing here inWashington state is - it's a state
that wants mainstream Democrats.
(16:45):
Inslee won three terms in a row.
He grew Democratic majoritiesfrom the time he took office to
the time he left office, 12 yearslater - Democrats had much bigger
majorities in the House and Senate.
That's a big accomplishment.
And what that should tell every otherDemocrat, particularly Bob Ferguson,
is that Inslee was onto something.
That what Inslee was doing made sense.
(17:05):
And since taking office, you kindof get the sense from Ferguson that
he was sort of watching Inslee allalong, thinking to himself - Well,
I can do a better job than that.
It turns out he actually couldn't.
He really needs to retool.
Look, this is not uncommon forchief executives filling that
office for the first time - to havesome bumps along the way, for that
job to go not as they expected.
(17:27):
And Ferguson, as we know, has hadreal bumps in his own personal office.
Some of his legislativedirectors have had to leave.
He needs to pivot.
Successful chief executives arewilling to be honest with themselves
about what's gone wrong andwhat needs to happen to fix it.
I don't see that so far from Ferguson.
He seems inclined to justdouble down on things.
(17:47):
And this idea that Republicans are warmingup to him - you are spot on about this.
Washington Republican voterswill never vote for a Democrat.
That's not going to happen.
In 2028, some Republican standard bearerwill come along who says everything
they want to hear, try to replay theTrump playbook, and they will vote
for that person, that guy - let's behonest, it's almost likely to be a
(18:08):
white man - against whatever Democratwe put up, no matter what they've done.
Ferguson will fail towin over Republicans.
He will alienate Democrats and put his ownlegislative majorities at risk in 2026,
and put his own reelection at risk in
2028.
Absolutely.
Was there anything thathappened in this legislative
(18:29):
session that was a bright spot?
There are really good thingsthat did come out of it.
Again, we need Fergusonto sign these bills.
Statewide rent stabilization worked outin the very, very end - with numerous
curveballs and potential derailments,from bad amendments in the state Senate
to all of a sudden on the Friday beforethe end of session, when it turned
(18:51):
out the bill was chaptered poorly andthey had to go back and rewrite the
whole thing and pass it in 48 hours.
But they got it done.
And it's very similar to whatCalifornia and Oregon have.
It's a 7% cap plus inflation, max 10%annual rent growth - that's pretty similar
to what California and Oregon have.
It excludes new construction.
So anyone saying that this particularbill will harm construction of new
(19:13):
housing - that's not been demonstratedin any other state like California
or Oregon under this particular law.
There are other forms ofstricter rent control where
that might happen - not this.
Speaking of building new homes, thetransit-oriented development bill, after
three sessions of wrangling betweenthe House and Senate, finally got done.
Governor Ferguson did say last weekat the Housing Development Consortium
Lunch that he would sign that.
(19:35):
I think that would be a greatbill for him to sign - to build
more housing in transit areas.
Washington will be one of the fewstates to allow striking workers
to collect unemployment benefits.
That's a great win for workers,that's a really huge bright spot.
So those are some of the things thatstand out to me as bright spots, but they
don't have the governor's signature yet.
And I think people are startingto recognize that - whereas with
(19:57):
Inslee, you knew that if it madeit out of the Legislature, it
was highly likely to get signed.
I don't know that we knowthat yet with Ferguson.
We'll see what happens in afew weeks when it comes time
for him to act on these bills.
Absolutely.
Well, we will continue to stay tunedto what happens, keep you updated as
these land on the governor's desk and hedecides what he is going to do with them.
(20:22):
Now, I want to talk about Seattlea bit and the Seattle mayoral race.
And some interesting news that wasreported in PubliCola this week
- that Joe Mallahan is considering- perhaps - talking to some people
about potentially running for mayor.
Now, Joe Mallahan is a name familiarto old people like us and people
(20:42):
who've been around for a while.
Who is he and why is this aninteresting piece of news?
It is.
I can see you smiling and Ihope our listeners can hear you
smiling when we talk about this.
And we'll explain why.
I think of Ryan Packer, the writerat The Urbanist - posted on Bluesky
about this news - the image of Obi-wanfrom Episode 4, saying, Oh, that's a
(21:03):
name I've not heard in a long time.
And that's how I think a lot of uswho've been around Seattle politics
in a while felt when we saw EricaBarnett report that Joe Mallahan is
thinking about running for mayor.
So Joe Mallahan was a corporatebusiness executive who decided to run
for mayor in 2009 when the incumbentmayor, Greg Nickels, was running for
(21:25):
a third term but had grown unpopular.
There are other people who saw thatNickels was unpopular, including Michael
McGinn, who was a progressive activist andurbanist affiliated with the Sierra Club.
But at the time, people thought thatNickels was strong enough to where he
would likely win a close re-election.
But as it turned out, he came in thirdin the top-two primary in August,
(21:46):
behind Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan.
And so the general election that year,in November 2009, was Mallahan versus
McGinn - corporate versus progressive,establishment versus populist.
And Mallahan got a reputation on thecampaign trail as not being very good
at public speaking, kind of not reallyunderstanding the job that well.
(22:06):
And then the firefighters union putout this wild video with firefighters
singing - Mallahan can - like, you know,the Candy Man can, but Mallahan can.
And it just got widely mocked.
And Mallahan got widely mocked for it,even though it wasn't his ad. And so
people look back on this race and thinkof Joe Mallahan as kind of a silly
(22:28):
candidate, but he got 49.5% of the vote.
He very nearly won that race.
Mike McGinn won with 50.5% in2009 and had to work really hard
with a great grassroots fieldoperation to pull out that victory.
And so fast forward here to 2025.
(22:49):
I've been thinking for a while thatI expect some corporate white dude to
show up with a business background andrun for mayor - in part because that's
exactly what happened in San Franciscowith Daniel Lurie, and in Portland
with Keith Wilson - and they both won.
So I have been assuming all springthat at some point we would see some
(23:09):
white male corporate executive showup and say - I'm running for mayor.
I did not expect it to actuallybe Joe Mallahan himself.
And to be clear, he has not actuallyformally announced any campaign
for mayor - it's only a rumor.
But it's an interestingrumor, nonetheless.
It is an interesting rumor.
And I obviously would be interestedto see where he's at on issues today.
(23:32):
Certainly, he was previouslyaligned with the Chamber.
And I think that was part of theproblem with him before, frankly.
I think he wasn't a joke of acandidate, which, you know, it's
easy to look back and especiallysee that "Joe Mallahan can" ad and
think - You know, was this guy kooky?
He was not.
He was a serious candidate, but I thinkit's a challenging alliance, especially
(23:56):
with traditionally Chamber interests.
And at that time, with CASE - a PACthat was directly affiliated with the
Chamber before that got too unpopularfor it to continue - that essentially
the Chamber was running his campaign.
I think he felt like he had lostcontrol of it and you could kind of
see he was not enjoying that situationand being out on the campaign trail.
(24:18):
So I wonder how that wouldinform how he would run now.
But it's really interesting tosee what Mallahan did nail, as did
Mike McGinn - was understandingbefore a lot of other people did
that the incumbent was vulnerable.
Mallahan nailed that.
And so it's interesting to see him again.
(24:39):
And another signal beyond some of thepolling, and especially the recent
social housing vote that Mayor Harrellled, which did not turn out well for
him - and he was the literal face of thaton the campaign and in the literature.
To see Mallahan calling aroundnow with that sense of - this
incumbent is vulnerable.
(25:00):
And I wonder how that's goingto play out in this race.
But certainly really interesting to see.
It is interesting.
And it comes at the end of amonth of April in which the
mayor's race was eerily quiet.
We didn't see new candidates jumpin, and I would have expected that.
Filing week starts next week?
(25:21):
Next week, next week.
Next week.
And that doesn't leave a greatdeal of time for people to
launch a mayoral campaign.
We know Harrell is vulnerable - notjust because Crystal and Robert
think he's vulnerable - pollingshows he is vulnerable.
His disapproval rating is muchhigher than his approval rating,
and his approval rating hasconsistently gone down over time.
So I think Katie Wilson is runninga great campaign for mayor - sees
(25:44):
that Harrell is vulnerable.
But some of the groups that have beenbacking Harrell to date, including
some big unions and the Chamber ofCommerce, have stuck by Harrell.
But you wonder how longthat's going to last.
There is this opening forsomeone else to jump in.
I still expect someone to look at whathappened in San Francisco and Portland
last year - two other West Coastcities with public discontent with the
(26:09):
incumbent regime - and think there isan opportunity there because there is.
Now, would it be Joe Mallahanhimself or someone else?
Who knows?
And they may run as Keith Wilson andDaniel Lurie did - on their own, without
the initial backing of the Chamber.
Someone may have to show up andconvince them with the strength of
their campaign - that this is doable.
But while this mayoral campaign has beeneerily quiet over the last four weeks,
(26:32):
I don't know that it's going to stayquiet between now and filing deadline.
Yeah, I would expect to seesome activity - we'll see there.
And you raise a good point thatthose candidates that we saw
in other cities ran without theinitial support of the Chamber.
Joe Mallahan, in 2009, ran withoutthe initial support of the Chamber
(26:53):
and those business-aligned interests.
They were sticking by Greg Nickels.
And it was only once Greg Nickels had lostin the primary and the general election
came, that the Chamber kind of swoopedin and said - Oh, Mallahan's now our guy.
We're going with him.
We're putting together atable to run this thing.
And it headed down that path.
So it'll be reallyinteresting to see here.
(27:16):
Where do you see the opportunitiesin this mayor's race?
I mean, I think there is anopportunity for someone to run as
a mainstream progressive candidate.
Seattle is obviously to the left ofthe state as a whole, but not always
as far left as we sometimes think.
There is a significant moderate blockin the city - moderate for Seattle.
And I think Katie Wilson is clearlytrying to target that and recognizes
(27:38):
that that's the reality of how to win.
And I think that is correct.
There is a widespread discontentwith the direction of the city and
a sense that Harrell is not reallygetting the job done very well.
And that was even before some ofthe recent scandals that came out
about how he's running his office.
So I think the opportunityis very much there.
This feels like 2009 to me, in whichthe incumbent is more vulnerable
(28:02):
than some of his big backers realize.
And those who recognize that andare willing to act on it are the
ones who are going to benefit.
Absolutely.
This does have 2009 vibes.
Now, you just alluded to scandalsthat the Harrell administration
has been dealing with.
We just got news this past week thatthere's another lawsuit from two
(28:24):
Black officers suing the SeattlePolice Department - alleging racism.
And that one of Harrell's biggestpromises to hire officers is finally
accelerating a little bit - they'regetting some more hiring done.
But unfortunately, SPD is losingwomen from the department faster
than they can hire to replace them.
(28:45):
What's happening here?
Why are there not many womenjoining the department, which
is one of their stated goals?
What's the challenge?
Well, I mean, you'vehit it on the head here.
There is a huge problemin SPD with sexism.
There's a huge problem in SPD with racism.
(29:06):
And not just towards thepublic, but within the ranks.
And there have been numerous lawsuitsfiled by women in the force about sexism
within SPD, many of them women of color.
And there are now more lawsuitsfrom other Black officers.
And earlier this week, Harrellhad a press conference to tout new
(29:28):
hiring numbers at SPD - we've gotsomething like 60 new officers.
And people pointed at the photoand like - they're all men.
Where are all the women?
And it's really clear that Harrell and SPDappear to have decided that hitting that
number is more important than ensuringyou're hitting it in the right way.
(29:49):
That if hiring the number of officersthey want means - Yeah, a bunch of them
are going to be men and we're going tocontinue to tolerate sexism within the
ranks, and we're not really going to domuch about the allegations of racism.
Gosh, we're hitting those numbers.
That kind of seems to me to bewhat the decision has been made
at the highest levels of the city.
(30:10):
And that just reinforcesthe problem we have.
There is widespread publicsupport for hiring more officers.
As much as I think some of theabolitionists left understandably don't
want that, that is where the public is.
But the public is not in a placewhere - hire more officers and
we don't care how you do it.
The public, I think, in this city,cares very much how you do it.
(30:31):
I don't think there's public supportfor having a racist police force.
I don't think there's public supportfor having a sexist police force.
And yet that is what we are - havebeen dealing with with SPD
for a very, very long time.
And it is continuing to be the case, withthe Harrell administration tolerating it.
(30:52):
It's a real challenge.
And as this most recent lawsuit wasreported - by The Seattle Times - they
gave a little recap to say in thesepast just two years, "have also seen
lawsuits from four female officers, apolice lieutenant, a veteran detective,
an assistant chief, and a formercandidate for chief - all alleging
(31:16):
some form of discrimination." Andthis is just within the department.
Former police chief Adrian Diaz,additionally, who is also named in
several of those lawsuits, filed hisown tort claim against the city for
$10 million, alleging he was wrongfullydemoted and discriminated against.
When you look at just this avalanche oflawsuits and litigation, what organization
(31:43):
does not have people crying out forchange and reform that sees a mountain
of litigation over a couple years?
Any organizational CEO, even in thisenvironment that we're in - that we
see bad behavior all the time - thisis the kind of stuff that impacts the
bottom line at any other organization.
(32:03):
This is the stuff that completelytears through a quality workforce and
forces out people doing the best work.
This is not sustainable for any otherkind of organization, and this is the kind
of activity that demands accountability.
Where does the buck stop with this?
Why is this not being - not only fixed,but addressed at all by anyone in power?
(32:30):
We have these recruitingconversations that just talk about
- Well, we need some more money.
We need to lower or modifyour hiring standards.
We need just to havesome more benefits there.
- when they're ignoring the giganticelephant in the room that says
there is a massive cultural problemhere that needs to be addressed.
(32:53):
And you have people shouting from high andlow and potential candidates saying - Hey,
I'm an officer in another jurisdiction.
I'm a woman who would consider this, whowants to help my community in this way.
And there's no way I would look atthis organization and say - That's
a place where I would feel safe,respected, like there's a real
space and opportunity for me.
(33:14):
Why are they continuingto just not address this?
Yeah, I mean, you have to keep in mindthat one of the mayor's top advisors
on public safety is Tim Burgess, who isa conservative white male former cop.
Who I think very much alignshimself - and always has - with this
approach of give the cops whateverthey want, that the job of City Hall
(33:38):
is to enable rather than oversee.
And I think that's one of the reasonswe're in this mess that we're in.
You're going to struggle toretain good officers if the
working conditions are bad.
And that's what's happening here.
It was easy for them to blame "Defund thePolice." It was easy for them to blame
progressives and the former city council.
(34:00):
But the reality is, SPD's recruitmentproblem is of its own making.
They've created a hostile work environmentand are chasing good people away.
Well, we see this as the top lineof - hey, there're finally new
officers, and it's a big success.
But I really worry, frankly, about whatthese people are walking into and what
(34:22):
we're going to see as a public from this.
But we'll continue to followthis and see what results, see
if this is addressed in any way.
But we certainly thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, May 2nd, 2025.
Can you believe it is May already?
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today waschair of Sierra Club Seattle,
(34:44):
longtime communications and politicalstrategist Robert Cruickshank.
You can find Robert on Blueskyat @robertcruickshank.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
(35:06):
Be sure to subscribe to get thepodcast and the full versions of
our Friday week-in-review showsand our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leave usa review wherever you listen - it
helps us out tremendously.
You can also get a full transcript ofthis episode and links to the references
and resources that we talked about inthe show at officialhacksandwonks.com.
(35:30):
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com