May 23, 2025 • 43 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and David Kroman discuss:
🖋️ Ferguson acts on state budget, parental bill of rights
🧊 Troubling ICE raids
🤓 Seattle Mayor race deep dive
🔔 Sara Nelson bellwether
🗳️ Other notable primary races
⛺️ Rushed Tent City 4 move
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, David Kroman at @kromandavid.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(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.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show,I chatted with Jamie Fackler, a candidate
(00:35):
for Seattle City Council District 2,about his stance on affordable housing,
public safety, transportation, andmore - as well as his opposition to
corporate influence in local politics.
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 ofthe show and today's co-host: Seattle
(00:56):
Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman.
Welcome back!
Hi, thanks for having me.
Excited to have you on today.
We do have a number of things todiscuss - starting with Governor Bob
Ferguson signing the state budget,essentially a number of new taxes
that are going to be implemented andhopefully leading us out of the budget
(01:21):
deficit that the state has been facing.
What happened with the budget?
What did he end up signing?
Yeah.
So, you know, as you said, itincludes a lot of new taxes.
Notably, it does not include some ofthe Democratic priorities from the
beginning of the session - and formerGovernor Jan Inslee's priorities - of a
wealth tax and a kind of Seattle-stylepayroll tax on large businesses.
(01:43):
Neither of those thingsmade it through to the end.
But there are, I think it waswhat, $9 billion in new taxes.
So I think this final budget is sort ofreflective of people's grappling with what
kind of governor Bob Ferguson would be.
I think it's still not maybeentirely clear to some people.
Early on, it seemed like he wasleaning toward kind of more Republican
(02:06):
points of view by basically nixingany talk of a wealth tax and
then eventually the payroll tax.
Now, of course, Republicans arekind of turned back against him
because it does include a lot moretaxes, it doesn't maybe include as
much spending cuts as they wanted.
And so I think it's still a little bitof a tale of two Bob Fergusons here.
It might take us a few sessionsto fully understand exactly what
(02:26):
kind of governor he's trying to be.
I'll point out one of the bigtax increases - the gas tax for
the transportation budget - thatwas a bipartisan proposal.
Senator Curtis King signed off on that aswell, in addition to Senator Marko Liias.
So not all of these tax increases arepurely Democratic priorities, but still,
I don't think you could look at thisas an austerity budget by any stretch.
(02:49):
I think that's right on.
So besides that, what othertaxes were in this budget?
Some of the big ones are increasingthe business and occupation tax,
which the state - particularly localjurisdictions - depend pretty heavily on.
this.
There is also a surcharge forcorporations making more than $250
(03:09):
million in state taxable income, sonot quite the kind of JumpStart payroll
tax that some had hoped for, but stilla focus a bit on large corporations.
There was an increase incapital gains tax, too.
And then also some changes to sales tax.
Mentioned the gas tax.
They increased the price of aDiscover Pass - that seems to be
(03:30):
kind of narrowly focused on parks.
So, not any sort of one major piece likethe wealth tax that some had proposing,
but kind of across the board bumps.
A smattering there.
Now, you mentioned that severalRepublicans weren't happy with the
overall budget, weren't happy withGovernor Ferguson after this was signed.
(03:51):
Have they signaled any action thatthey may take in response to this?
Well, short of a referendumor an initiative, there's
not a lot that they can do.
They'd been pushing for some vetoes inthe budget before the governor signed it.
He vetoed - I think it was $25 millionout of a $78 billion budget - so it's not
(04:13):
exactly making a big difference there.
There's still some more details that we'rewaiting on as far as whether he could
tweak some of these tax increases - westill don't have the full picture on that.
But short of going to the voters andasking them to repeal the capital
gains tax, which they already didlast time, then I don't think at this
point there's a lot that they can do.
Sounds like it.
(04:34):
And last time when they did try,as you just alluded to, kind of
failed by a pretty wide margin.
Essentially, two thirds of the state said- We actually like that tax, please keep it.
And so that probably doesn'tlook likely this time.
Now, also this past week, we sawGovernor Ferguson signing the amended
(04:54):
Washington parents bill of rights,which will go into effect immediately.
What did the parents bill of rights do?
What was amended?
And what are the reactions to this?
In a broad stroke, it basically givesparents more access to information
about their kids within the context ofschool, so that includes the sorts of
(05:15):
materials they're reading, if they'reinvolved in a crime, absenteeism.
The big controversial point,though, was around medical records
- particularly related to mental health.
This has actually been in Washington lawfor a long time - that parents don't get
full access to mental health records.
The Republican argument is that lawhas been expanded to include things
(05:39):
like gender affirming care, and sothe parents bill of rights would have
given more access to that information.
The change here kind ofpulls that back a little bit.
It does still leave open alot of access to information.
Parents can still learn about whetheror not their kids are showing up to
school or some of their behavioral stuff.
But this big question around medicalrecords - that is really the sticking
(06:03):
point here - and my understanding, thechanges that the Democrats made is made
it a little bit harder for parents toget access to those medical records.
The idea being some kids are goingthrough a process quietly and privately
- and it's not always a supportiveenvironment at home is the idea.
And the Democrats framed it asjust putting it in-line with
what state law already says.
(06:25):
Again, Republicans say that thatdefinition of mental health is expanded
beyond what was originally intended.
But what comes next for Republicans?
The bill was passed with emergencyclauses, which makes a referendum
more difficult, or perhaps impossible.
I suppose they could run anotherinitiative as they did before - which
perhaps they will, because they'vegot a pretty well-funded political
(06:48):
initiative runner now in Brian Heywood.
So perhaps there is a nextstep that Republicans take.
But for now, it reflects a little bitmore what Democrats wanted from this law.
Yeah, it does appear so.
And one that, like you said,Democrats were happy with, a number
of school districts were happy with.
And really, as you said, the ideabeing that some kids may be going
(07:09):
through a challenging transitionand home may not be a safe place.
There are some other circumstanceswhere what is told to a school counselor
or to a medical professional isn'tdivulged automatically to parents.
And really looking at keeping people safe,particularly because I think the people
(07:29):
who were most vocally supportive of thisbill were also very vocally in opposition
to laws protecting trans people andtheir rights - and safety, essentially.
So certainly, I think Democrats were veryhappy to see Bob Ferguson signing this.
As you said, Let's Go Washington has saidthat they plan to mount a repeal effort.
(07:53):
What the details of that are we arenot sure yet, whether it's going to
be an initiative to the legislatureor initiative to the people - what
exactly that would look like.
But they have voicedtheir opposition here.
We'll continue to stay tuned towhat's happening at the state level.
We did see some action related tofederal immigration enforcement really
(08:17):
recently, over the past couple of weeks.
Just a couple of days ago, theIRS participated in an immigration
raid at a Kent beverage company.
What happened here?
17 workers at this beveragecompany were arrested.
It appears to be - by our tally,it's the second major workplace
raid by ICE in Washington.
(08:39):
The other one was aBellingham roofing company.
So that alone stands out.
It's always good to preface theseconversations with noting that the
Biden administration carried out a lotof deportation proceedings, and ICE was
pretty active during that administration.
But the question is how thosepriorities are shifting.
I don't know that we saw as manyspecific targeting of businesses.
(09:02):
As far as we know, these people didn'thave extensive criminal histories or
anything like that - it was just aworkplace raid for working illegally.
And then, yeah, this piece about the IRSbeing involved - that would appear to be
a new front, which is basically they'reusing the IRS to tap into payroll data
and tax data to find people who might beworking undocumented in the United States.
(09:24):
And that would appear to be - Idon't know if you want to call it
an escalation, but a change from theway things were done in the past.
There was a lawsuit to try and blockaccess to that data that does not
appear to have succeeded for now.
And so I think if the IRS is going tobe more intimately involved in these
raids, then it would stand to reasonwe would see a lot more of these
(09:46):
large-scale workplace operations.
Which is a contrast to some of theoutward facing advertising that the
administration is doing around thework that they're using ICE for.
The emphasis has been on people withextensive criminal history, at least
as far as what they're talking aboutpublicly - implying that they're
going after the worst of the worst.
But this is an example that perhapsthey're really just going after folks
(10:08):
who are undocumented more broadly,regardless of whether or not those
people are seen as criminally dangerous.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we haven't seen workplace raidssince the Obama administration, I think.
Not something that we've seenin recent years here, certainly.
There's also been another new front,new development here - where ICE is
(10:29):
arresting people at immigration court.
What is happening with these andwhy do they have people so alarmed?
I think the reasoning here isthat the normal procedures of
immigration proceedings are very slow.
And we've known that for a long time.
And so what the administration is doingis using a different form of authority
(10:52):
to affect faster deportations, basically.
And so you get the situation wherepeople who are actually in immigration
and possibly deportation proceedings arehaving their cases dismissed, and then
quickly picked up on these differentauthorities which are a little more
contested in the courts, and using thatto then quickly affect these deportations.
(11:16):
Again, when we're talking about newfronts in immigration proceedings
- using, tapping into the courtsystem to make these arrests was
always pretty sensitive territory.
Because you want people to showup to court, generally speaking.
And if there is a sense that theymight get arrested by coming to
court, the fear is you decreaseodds that people actually come and
(11:38):
show up to their court proceedingsand go through the normal process.
I think in the first Trump administration,there was some reins put on those
raids in court proceedings, as well aschurches and schools and things like
that - that appear to be disappearingin this second administration.
They seem to be much more willingto go directly to court, use these
different bureaucratic methods to getpeople out of the country more quickly.
(12:00):
That is going to set up alot of really emotional and
contested deportations, likely.
I was reading a story yesterdayabout a guy from Denmark who was
arrested in his naturalizationhearing - so he was going to become
an American citizen and was arrested.
And the rationale was he had forgottento submit some paperwork 10 years
(12:20):
before that had never been a problem.
And so we can talk a lot aboutbureaucratic process and how
slow it moves - and that's fine.
And certainly, it's worth examining that.
We also see the flip side of whenadministration officials or federal
agents go around that process - it setsup a whole new set of issues, which is
that people that we have been fine withliving in the country before often get
(12:42):
swept up in these kinds of operations.
Absolutely.
I think that concern that you broughtup about just people being afraid of
turning up to court is a major one.
And not just for immigration proceedings.
Overall, court is our recourse foreverything - whether it's keeping people
safe, whether it's protecting yourself asa consumer, whether it's getting justice
(13:06):
for some wrong that has happened to you.
And so this can affect not onlyimmigration proceedings, but people who
have been victimized, who've had a crimeagainst them, may question whether they
should call and report it to the police.
If there are files charged andthey need to come to court to
testify, they may not show up.
(13:28):
And this is something that has, as yousaid, much broader implications to our
greater society - really different.
And also dismissing the charges inour traditional - how we see the
immigration proceedings happeningfor the expedited removal.
Expedited removal does not involvejudges, according to Matt Adams, the
(13:50):
legal director of the Northwest ImmigrantsRights Project - someone, an expedited
removal can be put on a plane leavingthe country in a matter of hours.
And we've seen that happen - HereI'm reading reporting by
Nina Shapiro at The Times.
And it just has a lot of people alarmed,especially as we see what feels like
a very arbitrary to some, malicious toothers, nature of where people are sent.
(14:15):
Just because someone is removed outof the country with this expedited
removal does not mean that they aregoing back to their country of origin.
And we're seeing people who have goneto various countries with troubling
human rights records, and sometimesinto detention of an undetermined length
where they have not seen a judge at all.
(14:37):
So this is something that's prettyalarming, where they aren't even updating
people on people's whereabouts - it's hardto track down people within this system.
By the time that happens, they mayhave been removed from the country,
and they're hard to locate there.
So it's alarmed a lot of people inthe community, and I think a lot of
people are just trying to get theirarms around what this means - for
(14:59):
them, friends and family, folks intheir community - and really what these
long-term implications are going to be.
Yeah, I do think if you couldpinpoint the difference between the
first Trump administration and thesecond one, it's that there was some
semblance of considering broaderimplications in the first Trump
administration, and that is largely gone.
There is now a stated goal that they have,which is to deport as many people as they
(15:22):
can, and they are going after that goal.
And the implications around what thatmeans for people's likelihood of showing
up to court, or people who should notbe getting deported being deported,
people being sent to places likeSouth Sudan or El Salvador - those are
not part of the calculation anymore.
There is a goal that they have andthey are doing what they can or want
(15:43):
to achieve that goal, and the largerimplications of it are apparently
no longer part of the factor.
Absolutely.
Well, now we're going toturn to Seattle elections.
And a couple things making news recently.
One, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrellscored a really big endorsement
in his re-election bid.
What happened and why is it significant?
(16:06):
Yeah, so Harrell was endorsed by theMLK Labor Council - that is basically
a union of unions - it contains150 or so unions in King County.
A lot of those are quite small unions.
There are, of course, then large onestoo - namely the construction trades,
hospitality unions, service unions,grocery stores, things like that.
(16:26):
The fact that he got this endorsement, Ithink, is significant for a few reasons.
One, he did not have the broadbacking of labor in his first run.
He had some unions - the constructionand trades unions tend to be a little
bit more moderate or conservative,whatever adjective you want to use.
But for the most part, formerCouncilmember Lorena González
won most of the labor support,including from MLK Labor.
(16:50):
And, in fact, a few unions spent close tohalf a million dollars opposing Harrell.
Some of that may come still becausethere is not a monolith in the union
labor world, but the fact that hecan now put the endorsement of the
labor council - which is perhaps animperfect representation of unions
in the area, but the closest wehave to a representative sample of
(17:13):
labor - that's a big deal for him.
And how this vote went down,it sounds like there's a lot of
internal politics around this.
Some of the biggest, more progressiveunions apparently abstained from the vote.
And so I think for folks like KatieWilson and Ry Armstrong, who are running
against Harrell, that was frustrating.
That they feel like he got theendorsement in some ways by default,
(17:34):
because not all the unions participated.
But that is an issue for thoseunions - that they didn't participate.
And at the end of the day, Harrelllegitimately won this endorsement.
And so by doing that, he adds tohis growing list of endorsements
that, I would say, kind of bluntany possible left-wing challenger.
(17:55):
Because remember - he got RepresentativePramila Jayapal's endorsement
earlier - that is a big deal as faras progressive support for Harrell.
And I think my general sense - andthis is just from talking to a lot of
people - is Harrell has done enough.
There isn't sort of ringing enthusiasmperhaps from labor, or even business
(18:17):
necessarily, But they feel like hehas done enough that they are fine
with him in the mayor's office.
They feel like they havegotten conversations with him.
They've gotten a few - they like thehousing and transportation levies.
He helped negotiate a quitefriendly contract for city workers.
And so I think that calculation fora lot of folks in the labor world
(18:38):
is - he's good enough, we've likedsome of the things he's been doing.
And by the way, we thinkhe's probably going to win.
And so all of those things combined, Ithink, has put labor, in particular, in
a position where they just don't feellike it is worth their time and energy
to stick their neck out for somebodyelse that they don't think can win.
And they're basically fine with Harrell.
And so I think that's what we're seeing.
(19:00):
And I do think that that willbe a big boon for his campaign.
Certainly, candidates tout thebacking of labor who have it.
Usually that support comes withsignificant resources that are really
helpful in a campaign - with campaigncommunication, with turning out voters
- I think they're looking at that.
You talked about some of theinternal dissent, the abstentions
(19:24):
that were controversial there.
Certainly, we've seen a lot of pushbackpublicly to these saying - Well,
wait a minute, there's at leastone other candidate in the race who
seems like they're much more closelyaligned with the labor agenda.
How did labor say that they parsed - Hey,maybe someone is saying that they're
(19:46):
aligned with our agenda, has ledthe passage - with Katie Wilson - of
several minimum wage initiatives aroundthe state that have raised wages for
working people, those usually at thelowest end of the income distribution.
And saying - Seems like there'sanother labor champion who is
closer to what we believe, yetthere is this incumbent there.
(20:08):
Do you think what it came down towas them making a decision on who
they thought was most likely to winand prioritizing that relationship?
I think that's part of it.
I would say there's a few thingsthere, which is I think supporters
of Katie Wilson, for example - andprobably Katie Wilson herself - think
that if labor does not back KatieWilson and then she wins, she is
(20:31):
going to continue to work with labor.
She is a pro-labor person.
That is just - it is not going to affecttheir relationship in office, because
that is fundamentally who she is.
And so in that sense, it is a low-riskbet for them to not endorse Katie Wilson
because they will not - there's highlyunlikely to be any sort of retaliation
if she wins and starts working with them.
(20:52):
So there's that, for sure.
Whereas, on the other hand, perhapsthey fear a little bit more that
going against Harrell could workagainst them if he were to win.
That's a piece of it, for sure.
I will say, though, I think there isa lot of sort of progressive pushback
to this MLK Labor endorsement.
We're seeing Kshama Sawant comeback out of the woodwork and
be pretty vocal about this.
(21:12):
Of course, some of Katie Wilson'sbiggest backers are frustrated by this.
I do think it is worth themreckoning with why Harrell is
not an unpopular figure in labor.
And, to some unions, a popular figure.
And it's because at the end of theday, they feel like their members
are getting pretty good deals outof the Mayor Harrell administration.
(21:33):
Again, we talked about the housingand transportation levies - those are
huge levies that are going to bring,particularly for the building and
construction trades, that's going tobring a lot of work to those members.
So, on a very real level, those membersare likely to benefit financially
from Mayor Harrell's proposalson housing and transportation.
You can make the argument Katie Wilsonwould have passed exactly the same levies.
(21:54):
That's fine.
But in real world terms, theyare benefiting from that.
And again, the city unions - Protec 17in particular, but a lot of the city
unions - Harrell personally got involvedwith those negotiations at the last
minute and gave them a very friendlydeal, even as the city was going towards
a pretty bad financial situation.
They got 5% raises, up to 5% raises - somepositions up to 30% raises - even when the
(22:20):
city was facing this major budget deficit.
So again - sure, yeah, I think thereis certainly some political think here
when they're considering who to endorse- who is going to retaliate, who's not
going to retaliate, that sort of thing.
I also think there is a legitimate caseto be made that some of the members just
feel like they're getting better paychecksbecause of what Bruce Harrell has done.
And I think that is worthacknowledging as well.
(22:42):
Yeah.
And especially with that retaliationconcern that - who knows, but may have
played a role in this endorsement.
I also think the composition of theCouncil is another thing that's different
now than was initially coming in, inthat you do have a Council where the
current majority has signaled at leastan openness to retreating on a lot of
(23:04):
the progress that has been made, that wehave some councilmembers who have talked
about wanting to go back on raises tothe minimum wage, to pause some of those,
to have some what most consider prettyanti-labor actions across the board.
And seeing that as muchmore of a possibility, much
more immediately possible.
(23:25):
Yeah, that's a great point - I shouldhave made it before - which is the
changes to particularly app-baseddelivery driver wage law and the
tip credit for small businesses.
Those were two things that came uplast year that ended up going nowhere.
There were a few reasons that endedup going nowhere, but a big one was
the mayor's office was signalingthat they didn't support them.
(23:47):
And so that put the City Council in aposition where they would have had to
go over the mayor, or get a veto-proofmajority for these changes that just
did not exist on the City Council,particularly when Tanya Woo was asked
to recuse herself from those votes.
And so, more than just thefinancial situation, Harrell took
some pretty concrete steps thatwere quite friendly to labor.
(24:08):
And so, can you say that BruceHarrell is the biggest labor
champion that the city's ever seen?
Certainly not.
There are some issues - his oppositionto the new tax on high-earning companies
for social housing - that rubbed a lot ofpeople in the labor world the wrong way.
His office's rollout of anew payday system in the
city has gone horribly wrong.
He's mandated that city workerscome back to the office - that
(24:29):
has not been particularly popular.
But again, in contrast to what theCity Council is doing, there has
not been enough reason for labor tospend time and energy opposing Bruce
Harrell and backing somebody else.
What they really want tospend time and energy doing is
opposing Sara Nelson, frankly.
And they are doing that - they'resupporting Dionne Foster largely.
(24:49):
And so I think they just don'tsee an enemy in Bruce Harrell,
though he's not perfect.
I don't think they see them as a majorimpediment to doing what they want to do.
And that combined with theircalculation that he's probably
going to win - again, that's theirthinking, not necessarily mine.
And the cherry on top being - ifKatie Wilson wins, they'll still
be able to work with her just fine.
(25:10):
I just don't think thatthey have been given enough
motivation to back somebody else.
And I think it is worth hearing themout on that if you're on the progressive
left - that at the end of the day,labor has done pretty well under Bruce
Harrell, and I don't think that thatshould be so easily and quickly dismissed.
Yeah.
I also don't think this is necessarilyout of character with what we've seen
(25:34):
with labor over the past 10, 15 years.
No, exactly - yeah.
They endorsed Jenny Durkan, MLKLabor endorsed Jenny Durkan.
They endorsed against Kshama Sawant.
So this is not - MLK Labor isnot some far-left organization.
Although it is interesting inthat in 2020, they voted to kick
out the police union, and now arebacking the person who says they
(25:56):
want to grow the number of police.
So there's some whiplash politics inthat labor world, but certainly it is not
a bastion of far-left politics at all.
But at the end of the day, it doesconsolidate support for Bruce Harrell
in a way that tends to be prettypowerful in city politics, which
is - he can now credibly boost thebacking of both business and labor.
And will that win him alot of progressive votes?
(26:17):
Maybe not.
Will it blunt some of the groundswellfrom the left against him?
Probably.
Absolutely.
This is me chiming in after the fact.
This is after we've actually concludedour recording for today's show, but I
decided to come back because while we wererecording, there was news of a poll about
(26:38):
the mayor's race that was very relevantto the discussion that we just had.
And since we did such a deep dive,I decided it didn't make sense to
wait until next week to discuss this.
But this was just published in TheCascadia Advocate, a publication of the
Northwest Progressive Institute, or NPI.
Headline here says - Katie Wilson,36%, Bruce Harrell, 33%: NPI's May
(27:04):
2025 Civic Heartbeat poll findsstatistical tie in Seattle mayoral race.
So that's the headline.
Let me go through this alittle bit because that does
not tell the whole story.
So what this starts off discussing- it's a poll about the mayor's race.
Starts off asking whether peopleapprove or disapprove of Bruce
(27:26):
Harrell's job performance - 37% approve,45% disapprove, 18% aren't sure.
So a net performancerating of negative 8%.
Instead of polling all of the peoplein the primary, they said they thought
that Katie Wilson and Bruce Harrellseemed to be the likely frontrunners and
(27:48):
likely to advance - according to theirestimation - to the general election.
So they just decided to poll testthe two of them head-to-head.
So it asks - If the 2025 general electionfor Mayor of Seattle were being held
today, and the candidates were thefollowing, who would you vote for?
25% said Bruce Harrell, 18% said KatieWilson, 56% said they weren't sure.
(28:16):
So here you have in this poll,Bruce Harrell leading by seven
percentage points, with 56% beingunsure of who they would vote for.
Huge undecided.
This is not the oddest thing tosee for an undecided percentage
going into a local election.
But it is notable that only 25% of thepeople said that they would vote for Bruce
(28:40):
Harrell - that's unusual for an incumbent.
So where the headline of the pollcomes from is the follow-up question
asked of undecided voters only.
Said - Here are two statements fromthese mayoral candidates about their
priorities and vision for Seattle.
Please read each carefully.
Then, if you had to choose,who would you vote for?
The first statement says, "We'vedelivered public safety solutions,
(29:03):
kept parks and sidewalks open andaccessible while moving people into
shelter and housing with services,made historic investments in affordable
housing, prioritized a transportationsystem focused on safety, and passed
nation-leading climate legislation,"Bruce Harrell's website says.
"But there is more work to do - this isthe time for proven leadership to stand up
for our values and to keep Seattle movingforward as a city that is welcoming,
(29:27):
affordable, and safe." The secondstatement says, "The incumbent mayor has
been a fixture in city hall since 2008.
More people are sleeping unshelteredon our streets than ever before.
Working families arestruggling to stay afloat.
We can do so much better.
And as we face unprecedentednational threats, we must do
better," Katie Wilson's websitesays. "When I step into the mayor's
(29:49):
office, I'll be working for you.
I love this city, and I know thatwe can solve our most pressing
problems and accomplish great thingstogether." Then asks - If you had
to choose, who would you vote for?
Those responses had Katie Wilson at 34%,Bruce Harrell at 15%, and Not sure 51%.
So the combined answer is the aggregate ofboth of those - have Katie Wilson landing
(30:14):
at 36%, Bruce Harrell landing at 36%,and those who still aren't sure at 30%.
So this was a survey that was in thefield from May 10th to May 14th - Saturday
through Wednesday - of 522 likely November2025 Seattle general election voters.
(30:37):
Poll was conducted for the NorthwestProgressive Institute by Change Research
and has a modeled margin of error of 4.4%.
So just wanted to throwthat into our conversation.
We were talking about how perceptionsof the electability of one or both
may have played a role in some ofthe endorsements in the mayoral race.
(31:00):
And now we have one data point that saysthis may be a really competitive race.
Well, there's another recententrant into this race that
we haven't talked about yet.
And I don't know that we have a greatidea of where he stands on all of these
issues, but Joe Mallahan, former Seattlemayoral candidate back in 2009, who
(31:26):
lost a very, very close race to formerMayor Mike McGinn, is into this race.
He does, going in, seeminglypull from Bruce Harrell's more
corporate base, some would think.
But I don't know that he's necessarilysaid - I'm Mr. Corporate - or that
he's articulated that himself.
(31:46):
So how is he positioned and do wehave an idea on where he stands
on issues important to labor?
Yeah, we haven't heard a ton from him.
In his announcement, he seemed to befocusing on some of the workplace issues
that have been reported on, both inthe Seattle Police Department and the
mayor's office - thinking specificallyof Monisha Harrell and some of what she
(32:08):
has said about working in that office.
So that was part of his announcement,which I thought was interesting.
It was neither a progressive normore conservative flank of Bruce
Harrell, it was more about the wayin which he was running the city.
Joe Mallahan is interestingbecause we have not heard from him
since he ran for mayor in 2009.
My colleague Jim Brunner had pulledup some of his statements when he lost
(32:29):
that race, talking about how this is notthe end you will see of Joe Mallahan,
I'll be around, I'll be involved.
As far as I can tell, thathasn't been true at all.
I haven't heard from him once since 2009.
So I don't know what the JoeMallahan constituency is.
That said, I think the only kind of realchallengers we've seen to Bruce Harrell
- probably from the left in Katie Wilson andperhaps Ry Armstrong - I suppose it makes
(32:52):
sense that you would see somebody who's alittle more moderate also challenging him.
But again, what the lane isthere - it feels narrow to me.
Look forward to hearingmore from Joe Mallahan.
I actually do look forward tohearing more from Joe Mallahan.
Curious to see where he'sat and what his plans are.
Now, we did recently pass the filingdeadline, where candidates have to
(33:15):
officially declare their intent torun for office by early mid-May.
So we know now who is definitelyon races, who will definitely
be appearing on ballots.
Are there any races that you feel areparticularly interesting or exciting?
Yeah, well, I should sayall of them - that is not
(33:36):
entirely true across the board.
I would say the race - AlexisMercedes Rinck's seat is not going
to be particularly interesting, sowe can kind of set that one aside.
But for my money, the mostinteresting one is Sara Nelson's seat.
I think it's going to be tight.
I think it's going to be competitive.
I think Dionne Foster will havea lot of establishment support
(33:57):
and is being represented by - Ibelieve she's being represented
by - Christian Sinderman's firm.
So she has - this has the trappingsof a very legitimate Seattle campaign.
I think Sara Nelson is really theface of the current City Council.
And I think people on both sides willtell you that this race is a bellwether
in a lot of ways - if the population ishappy with what the City Council more
(34:19):
generally is doing, they will probablyreward Sara Nelson with another term.
If they are frustrated with anypieces of it, they will probably
take it out on Sara Nelson.
And so I just think we're goingto learn the most about how the
city is feeling based on theresults of that particular race.
And if Sara Nelson wins, it is reallyaffirming to her style of leadership,
(34:39):
which is not everybody's cup oftea by any stretch - but it is of
a particular persuasion, and it isvery committed to that persuasion.
If she loses, it will really fundamentallyreshape that City Council because she is
the most prominent member at this point.
And represents this wave of moremoderate City Council people that came
in - she is the figurehead of that.
(34:59):
She's the President.
If she goes down, the numbers arestill in the favor of the moderates,
but it would really undercut what Ithink a lot of them view as a mandate.
Absolutely.
Now, there are some other races that Ithink are interesting - at the top of that
list is the King County Executive race.
After Dow Constantine resigned togo run Sound Transit, we now have
(35:22):
County Executive Shannon Braddockthrough the end of this term.
But what is now an open seat in thiselection, with current King County
Councilmembers Claudia Balducci,Girmay Zahilay both running.
John Wilson in the race, alongwith a few other candidates.
That - I don't know that we can call it.
(35:43):
Certainly, it looks like among the LDs,Girmay Zahilay is getting some of those
Democratic Party endorsements, but thatdoesn't always tell the whole story.
How do you see that shaping up?
Yeah, it's interesting.
I think it's certainly notable that thisis the first time in 16 years that Dow
Constantine has not been on the ballot.
That opens things up quite a bit.
(36:03):
My intuition for King County races is notprobably as refined as it is for Seattle
races, because King County includes a lotof - it's not just Seattle, of course.
You can't just appeal to Seattle voters.
You have to appeal to, in some cases,straight up kind of rural voters - there
are fairly rural parts of King County.
And so I think if this was a Seattlerace, my sense would be that Girmay
(36:28):
Zahilay holds the advantage becauseof what you said - some of the
local Democratic groups and thingslike that seem to be backing him.
He's got endorsements that wouldsuggest he's in a strong position.
But when you include other partsof King County, I don't know.
I think Claudia Balducci - shewas the mayor of Bellevue and is
pretty well liked on the Eastside.
And so I think that'scertainly going to factor in.
(36:50):
My gut tells me this is a racebetween Zahilay and Balducci,
and that John Wilson will likelynot make it through the primary.
And then once we get to the generalelection, I don't know - I do think
the Eastside's vote is going tobe important here in determining
who actually takes that seat.
Yeah, absolutely - that'sgoing to be one to watch.
Some other ones that are just on my radarthat I think are really interesting,
(37:12):
where potentially a lot is at stake.
One, the Seattle School Board elections.
I think three out of the four seatsup will have competitive primaries
that will be on the primary ballot.
A couple of those seats haveseveral candidates in there.
And we just saw a lot of rancorand real consternation in a lot of
(37:34):
what's on deck for the school board.
Talk of school closures, a rescindingof a school closure plan, really big
deficit that they're facing, a Seattlesuperintendent who is departing,
there's going to be a new one on deck,a lot of programs are up in the air
and there's a lot of uncertainty withongoing budget concerns - there's a
(37:55):
lot on the table for School Board.
There's a few different directionsthat could go that are going to be
real consequential for perhaps decades.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Then King County Council District5 seat - that was Councilmember
Dave Upthegrove's seat.
He was elected to be our stateSuperintendent of Public Lands,
(38:16):
so now we have that open seat.
With a number of candidates there - one,Steffanie Fain, wife of former legislator
Joe Fain, Republican legislatorJoe Fain there, who has gotten some
early moderate endorsements, businessendorsements there, has a lot of money.
But some are questioning if she istoo conservative for the district and
(38:40):
potentially going to be weighed downby some of the baggage of her husband.
We'll see there.
Then in the 33rd LegislativeDistrict competition between
Edwin Obras and Kevin Schilling.
Edwin had received the appointmentfollowing Karen Kaiser's retirement, Tina
Orwall's movement into the Senate seat,which left a Representative seat open.
(39:04):
He was appointed to that and is beingchallenged by Burien Mayor Kevin
Schilling, who has made lots of news forhow he and that council have decided to
principally approach taking a really,really hard - some would say draconian,
some would say unconstitutional - approachto homelessness and some of the
(39:25):
outlaws and bans that they have there.
So that's going to be one thatis definitely going to impact the
direction of legislating for that seat.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Final thing I wanted to talk about wasTent City 4, which you covered this
week - rushed to move to a new site.
(39:46):
What happened here?
This has been such a chronic problemin Seattle - that we've seen lots
and lots of sweeps, or record numberof sweeps, moving people from one
place to another - and this seemsto fall square within that category.
What happened here?
Yeah, I would say, actually, this isslightly different than the general
sweeps because Tent City 4 is in therealm of sanctioned homeless encampments.
(40:10):
So this is an organization that has beenaround for 20 years or something like that
- these various different tent cities.
And so their whole thing is - and thisis intentional, to try and cut down
on too much neighborhood oppositionis - they move into a place and they
don't stay there for more than a year.
And so they've been in Lake City, at theMennonite Church there, for the last year.
(40:32):
That year was coming up.
They thought they had a place thatthey were going to move - to the
old Lake City Community Center,which had closed because of a fire.
And so that was the plan - wasthey were going to move there.
At the last minute, there was kind ofintense opposition to this happening.
And then that was channeled byCouncilmember Cathy Moore, who on the
City Council, but also on the King CountyRegional Homelessness Authority Board.
(40:53):
She really brought forward a lot of theseconcerns she was hearing from neighbors.
Basically, the argument she wasmaking is that Lake City is being
asked to host this encampment toomuch, and so that meant that this
deal fell through at the last minute.
They revived the deal - sortof - to avoid basically all these
people scattering to the winds.
And agreed that the tent city couldstay at the Lake City Community
(41:16):
Center for up to six months whilethey look for somewhere else.
But I do think it gets at the largerchallenges when you're talking about
siting places for homeless people tolive, which is - it is really difficult
to navigate the neighborhood dynamics.
And this City Council - and I wouldsay in particular, Cathy Moore - is
very sensitive to those things.
(41:36):
She is very responsive to"neighborhood concerns" and that
manifests itself in various ways.
And Tent City 4 moving just a fewblocks from where they were before
really struck a nerve with her andapparently some of her constituents.
And so that has made the situationmore complicated for everybody.
Right now, they have aplace where they can be.
After six months - or earlier thanthat - becomes a little less certain.
(42:00):
Is there a chance they mayhave to go earlier than that?
The deal was between one to sixmonths that they can stay there.
If I had to guess, I would say thatthey probably are there for six months
while they look for another place.
I think the detente was that it notbe longer than six months, which is a
shorter stay than they usually have.
If they find somewhere else beforethen, they would probably move again.
(42:22):
But I think the general belief is thatthis Lake City Community Center is
not their permanent home right now.
Got it.
Well, we will continue to follow that.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, May 23rd, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(42:42):
Our insightful co-host today wasSeattle Times City Hall reporter,
David Kroman - always insightful.
You can find David onBluesky at @KromanDavid.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
And you can find me there too - at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, or wherever else you get
(43:02):
your podcasts - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get thepodcast full versions on Friday and
Tuesday delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can also get a full texttranscript of this episode and links
to the resources referenced in theshow at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
(43:23):
Thanks for tuning in - 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
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 Jamie Fackler, a candidate
(00:35):
for Seattle City Council District 2,about his stance on affordable housing,
public safety, transportation, andmore - as well as his opposition to
corporate influence in local politics.
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 ofthe show and today's co-host: Seattle
(00:56):
Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman.
Welcome back!
Hi, thanks for having me.
Excited to have you on today.
We do have a number of things todiscuss - starting with Governor Bob
Ferguson signing the state budget,essentially a number of new taxes
that are going to be implemented andhopefully leading us out of the budget
(01:21):
deficit that the state has been facing.
What happened with the budget?
What did he end up signing?
Yeah.
So, you know, as you said, itincludes a lot of new taxes.
Notably, it does not include some ofthe Democratic priorities from the
beginning of the session - and formerGovernor Jan Inslee's priorities - of a
wealth tax and a kind of Seattle-stylepayroll tax on large businesses.
(01:43):
Neither of those thingsmade it through to the end.
But there are, I think it waswhat, $9 billion in new taxes.
So I think this final budget is sort ofreflective of people's grappling with what
kind of governor Bob Ferguson would be.
I think it's still not maybeentirely clear to some people.
Early on, it seemed like he wasleaning toward kind of more Republican
(02:06):
points of view by basically nixingany talk of a wealth tax and
then eventually the payroll tax.
Now, of course, Republicans arekind of turned back against him
because it does include a lot moretaxes, it doesn't maybe include as
much spending cuts as they wanted.
And so I think it's still a little bitof a tale of two Bob Fergusons here.
It might take us a few sessionsto fully understand exactly what
(02:26):
kind of governor he's trying to be.
I'll point out one of the bigtax increases - the gas tax for
the transportation budget - thatwas a bipartisan proposal.
Senator Curtis King signed off on that aswell, in addition to Senator Marko Liias.
So not all of these tax increases arepurely Democratic priorities, but still,
I don't think you could look at thisas an austerity budget by any stretch.
(02:49):
I think that's right on.
So besides that, what othertaxes were in this budget?
Some of the big ones are increasingthe business and occupation tax,
which the state - particularly localjurisdictions - depend pretty heavily on.
this.
There is also a surcharge forcorporations making more than $250
(03:09):
million in state taxable income, sonot quite the kind of JumpStart payroll
tax that some had hoped for, but stilla focus a bit on large corporations.
There was an increase incapital gains tax, too.
And then also some changes to sales tax.
Mentioned the gas tax.
They increased the price of aDiscover Pass - that seems to be
(03:30):
kind of narrowly focused on parks.
So, not any sort of one major piece likethe wealth tax that some had proposing,
but kind of across the board bumps.
A smattering there.
Now, you mentioned that severalRepublicans weren't happy with the
overall budget, weren't happy withGovernor Ferguson after this was signed.
(03:51):
Have they signaled any action thatthey may take in response to this?
Well, short of a referendumor an initiative, there's
not a lot that they can do.
They'd been pushing for some vetoes inthe budget before the governor signed it.
He vetoed - I think it was $25 millionout of a $78 billion budget - so it's not
(04:13):
exactly making a big difference there.
There's still some more details that we'rewaiting on as far as whether he could
tweak some of these tax increases - westill don't have the full picture on that.
But short of going to the voters andasking them to repeal the capital
gains tax, which they already didlast time, then I don't think at this
point there's a lot that they can do.
Sounds like it.
(04:34):
And last time when they did try,as you just alluded to, kind of
failed by a pretty wide margin.
Essentially, two thirds of the state said- We actually like that tax, please keep it.
And so that probably doesn'tlook likely this time.
Now, also this past week, we sawGovernor Ferguson signing the amended
(04:54):
Washington parents bill of rights,which will go into effect immediately.
What did the parents bill of rights do?
What was amended?
And what are the reactions to this?
In a broad stroke, it basically givesparents more access to information
about their kids within the context ofschool, so that includes the sorts of
(05:15):
materials they're reading, if they'reinvolved in a crime, absenteeism.
The big controversial point,though, was around medical records
- particularly related to mental health.
This has actually been in Washington lawfor a long time - that parents don't get
full access to mental health records.
The Republican argument is that lawhas been expanded to include things
(05:39):
like gender affirming care, and sothe parents bill of rights would have
given more access to that information.
The change here kind ofpulls that back a little bit.
It does still leave open alot of access to information.
Parents can still learn about whetheror not their kids are showing up to
school or some of their behavioral stuff.
But this big question around medicalrecords - that is really the sticking
(06:03):
point here - and my understanding, thechanges that the Democrats made is made
it a little bit harder for parents toget access to those medical records.
The idea being some kids are goingthrough a process quietly and privately
- and it's not always a supportiveenvironment at home is the idea.
And the Democrats framed it asjust putting it in-line with
what state law already says.
(06:25):
Again, Republicans say that thatdefinition of mental health is expanded
beyond what was originally intended.
But what comes next for Republicans?
The bill was passed with emergencyclauses, which makes a referendum
more difficult, or perhaps impossible.
I suppose they could run anotherinitiative as they did before - which
perhaps they will, because they'vegot a pretty well-funded political
(06:48):
initiative runner now in Brian Heywood.
So perhaps there is a nextstep that Republicans take.
But for now, it reflects a little bitmore what Democrats wanted from this law.
Yeah, it does appear so.
And one that, like you said,Democrats were happy with, a number
of school districts were happy with.
And really, as you said, the ideabeing that some kids may be going
(07:09):
through a challenging transitionand home may not be a safe place.
There are some other circumstanceswhere what is told to a school counselor
or to a medical professional isn'tdivulged automatically to parents.
And really looking at keeping people safe,particularly because I think the people
(07:29):
who were most vocally supportive of thisbill were also very vocally in opposition
to laws protecting trans people andtheir rights - and safety, essentially.
So certainly, I think Democrats were veryhappy to see Bob Ferguson signing this.
As you said, Let's Go Washington has saidthat they plan to mount a repeal effort.
(07:53):
What the details of that are we arenot sure yet, whether it's going to
be an initiative to the legislatureor initiative to the people - what
exactly that would look like.
But they have voicedtheir opposition here.
We'll continue to stay tuned towhat's happening at the state level.
We did see some action related tofederal immigration enforcement really
(08:17):
recently, over the past couple of weeks.
Just a couple of days ago, theIRS participated in an immigration
raid at a Kent beverage company.
What happened here?
17 workers at this beveragecompany were arrested.
It appears to be - by our tally,it's the second major workplace
raid by ICE in Washington.
(08:39):
The other one was aBellingham roofing company.
So that alone stands out.
It's always good to preface theseconversations with noting that the
Biden administration carried out a lotof deportation proceedings, and ICE was
pretty active during that administration.
But the question is how thosepriorities are shifting.
I don't know that we saw as manyspecific targeting of businesses.
(09:02):
As far as we know, these people didn'thave extensive criminal histories or
anything like that - it was just aworkplace raid for working illegally.
And then, yeah, this piece about the IRSbeing involved - that would appear to be
a new front, which is basically they'reusing the IRS to tap into payroll data
and tax data to find people who might beworking undocumented in the United States.
(09:24):
And that would appear to be - Idon't know if you want to call it
an escalation, but a change from theway things were done in the past.
There was a lawsuit to try and blockaccess to that data that does not
appear to have succeeded for now.
And so I think if the IRS is going tobe more intimately involved in these
raids, then it would stand to reasonwe would see a lot more of these
(09:46):
large-scale workplace operations.
Which is a contrast to some of theoutward facing advertising that the
administration is doing around thework that they're using ICE for.
The emphasis has been on people withextensive criminal history, at least
as far as what they're talking aboutpublicly - implying that they're
going after the worst of the worst.
But this is an example that perhapsthey're really just going after folks
(10:08):
who are undocumented more broadly,regardless of whether or not those
people are seen as criminally dangerous.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we haven't seen workplace raidssince the Obama administration, I think.
Not something that we've seenin recent years here, certainly.
There's also been another new front,new development here - where ICE is
(10:29):
arresting people at immigration court.
What is happening with these andwhy do they have people so alarmed?
I think the reasoning here isthat the normal procedures of
immigration proceedings are very slow.
And we've known that for a long time.
And so what the administration is doingis using a different form of authority
(10:52):
to affect faster deportations, basically.
And so you get the situation wherepeople who are actually in immigration
and possibly deportation proceedings arehaving their cases dismissed, and then
quickly picked up on these differentauthorities which are a little more
contested in the courts, and using thatto then quickly affect these deportations.
(11:16):
Again, when we're talking about newfronts in immigration proceedings
- using, tapping into the courtsystem to make these arrests was
always pretty sensitive territory.
Because you want people to showup to court, generally speaking.
And if there is a sense that theymight get arrested by coming to
court, the fear is you decreaseodds that people actually come and
(11:38):
show up to their court proceedingsand go through the normal process.
I think in the first Trump administration,there was some reins put on those
raids in court proceedings, as well aschurches and schools and things like
that - that appear to be disappearingin this second administration.
They seem to be much more willingto go directly to court, use these
different bureaucratic methods to getpeople out of the country more quickly.
(12:00):
That is going to set up alot of really emotional and
contested deportations, likely.
I was reading a story yesterdayabout a guy from Denmark who was
arrested in his naturalizationhearing - so he was going to become
an American citizen and was arrested.
And the rationale was he had forgottento submit some paperwork 10 years
(12:20):
before that had never been a problem.
And so we can talk a lot aboutbureaucratic process and how
slow it moves - and that's fine.
And certainly, it's worth examining that.
We also see the flip side of whenadministration officials or federal
agents go around that process - it setsup a whole new set of issues, which is
that people that we have been fine withliving in the country before often get
(12:42):
swept up in these kinds of operations.
Absolutely.
I think that concern that you broughtup about just people being afraid of
turning up to court is a major one.
And not just for immigration proceedings.
Overall, court is our recourse foreverything - whether it's keeping people
safe, whether it's protecting yourself asa consumer, whether it's getting justice
(13:06):
for some wrong that has happened to you.
And so this can affect not onlyimmigration proceedings, but people who
have been victimized, who've had a crimeagainst them, may question whether they
should call and report it to the police.
If there are files charged andthey need to come to court to
testify, they may not show up.
(13:28):
And this is something that has, as yousaid, much broader implications to our
greater society - really different.
And also dismissing the charges inour traditional - how we see the
immigration proceedings happeningfor the expedited removal.
Expedited removal does not involvejudges, according to Matt Adams, the
(13:50):
legal director of the Northwest ImmigrantsRights Project - someone, an expedited
removal can be put on a plane leavingthe country in a matter of hours.
And we've seen that happen - HereI'm reading reporting by
Nina Shapiro at The Times.
And it just has a lot of people alarmed,especially as we see what feels like
a very arbitrary to some, malicious toothers, nature of where people are sent.
(14:15):
Just because someone is removed outof the country with this expedited
removal does not mean that they aregoing back to their country of origin.
And we're seeing people who have goneto various countries with troubling
human rights records, and sometimesinto detention of an undetermined length
where they have not seen a judge at all.
(14:37):
So this is something that's prettyalarming, where they aren't even updating
people on people's whereabouts - it's hardto track down people within this system.
By the time that happens, they mayhave been removed from the country,
and they're hard to locate there.
So it's alarmed a lot of people inthe community, and I think a lot of
people are just trying to get theirarms around what this means - for
(14:59):
them, friends and family, folks intheir community - and really what these
long-term implications are going to be.
Yeah, I do think if you couldpinpoint the difference between the
first Trump administration and thesecond one, it's that there was some
semblance of considering broaderimplications in the first Trump
administration, and that is largely gone.
There is now a stated goal that they have,which is to deport as many people as they
(15:22):
can, and they are going after that goal.
And the implications around what thatmeans for people's likelihood of showing
up to court, or people who should notbe getting deported being deported,
people being sent to places likeSouth Sudan or El Salvador - those are
not part of the calculation anymore.
There is a goal that they have andthey are doing what they can or want
(15:43):
to achieve that goal, and the largerimplications of it are apparently
no longer part of the factor.
Absolutely.
Well, now we're going toturn to Seattle elections.
And a couple things making news recently.
One, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrellscored a really big endorsement
in his re-election bid.
What happened and why is it significant?
(16:06):
Yeah, so Harrell was endorsed by theMLK Labor Council - that is basically
a union of unions - it contains150 or so unions in King County.
A lot of those are quite small unions.
There are, of course, then large onestoo - namely the construction trades,
hospitality unions, service unions,grocery stores, things like that.
(16:26):
The fact that he got this endorsement, Ithink, is significant for a few reasons.
One, he did not have the broadbacking of labor in his first run.
He had some unions - the constructionand trades unions tend to be a little
bit more moderate or conservative,whatever adjective you want to use.
But for the most part, formerCouncilmember Lorena González
won most of the labor support,including from MLK Labor.
(16:50):
And, in fact, a few unions spent close tohalf a million dollars opposing Harrell.
Some of that may come still becausethere is not a monolith in the union
labor world, but the fact that hecan now put the endorsement of the
labor council - which is perhaps animperfect representation of unions
in the area, but the closest wehave to a representative sample of
(17:13):
labor - that's a big deal for him.
And how this vote went down,it sounds like there's a lot of
internal politics around this.
Some of the biggest, more progressiveunions apparently abstained from the vote.
And so I think for folks like KatieWilson and Ry Armstrong, who are running
against Harrell, that was frustrating.
That they feel like he got theendorsement in some ways by default,
(17:34):
because not all the unions participated.
But that is an issue for thoseunions - that they didn't participate.
And at the end of the day, Harrelllegitimately won this endorsement.
And so by doing that, he adds tohis growing list of endorsements
that, I would say, kind of bluntany possible left-wing challenger.
(17:55):
Because remember - he got RepresentativePramila Jayapal's endorsement
earlier - that is a big deal as faras progressive support for Harrell.
And I think my general sense - andthis is just from talking to a lot of
people - is Harrell has done enough.
There isn't sort of ringing enthusiasmperhaps from labor, or even business
(18:17):
necessarily, But they feel like hehas done enough that they are fine
with him in the mayor's office.
They feel like they havegotten conversations with him.
They've gotten a few - they like thehousing and transportation levies.
He helped negotiate a quitefriendly contract for city workers.
And so I think that calculation fora lot of folks in the labor world
(18:38):
is - he's good enough, we've likedsome of the things he's been doing.
And by the way, we thinkhe's probably going to win.
And so all of those things combined, Ithink, has put labor, in particular, in
a position where they just don't feellike it is worth their time and energy
to stick their neck out for somebodyelse that they don't think can win.
And they're basically fine with Harrell.
And so I think that's what we're seeing.
(19:00):
And I do think that that willbe a big boon for his campaign.
Certainly, candidates tout thebacking of labor who have it.
Usually that support comes withsignificant resources that are really
helpful in a campaign - with campaigncommunication, with turning out voters
- I think they're looking at that.
You talked about some of theinternal dissent, the abstentions
(19:24):
that were controversial there.
Certainly, we've seen a lot of pushbackpublicly to these saying - Well,
wait a minute, there's at leastone other candidate in the race who
seems like they're much more closelyaligned with the labor agenda.
How did labor say that they parsed - Hey,maybe someone is saying that they're
(19:46):
aligned with our agenda, has ledthe passage - with Katie Wilson - of
several minimum wage initiatives aroundthe state that have raised wages for
working people, those usually at thelowest end of the income distribution.
And saying - Seems like there'sanother labor champion who is
closer to what we believe, yetthere is this incumbent there.
(20:08):
Do you think what it came down towas them making a decision on who
they thought was most likely to winand prioritizing that relationship?
I think that's part of it.
I would say there's a few thingsthere, which is I think supporters
of Katie Wilson, for example - andprobably Katie Wilson herself - think
that if labor does not back KatieWilson and then she wins, she is
(20:31):
going to continue to work with labor.
She is a pro-labor person.
That is just - it is not going to affecttheir relationship in office, because
that is fundamentally who she is.
And so in that sense, it is a low-riskbet for them to not endorse Katie Wilson
because they will not - there's highlyunlikely to be any sort of retaliation
if she wins and starts working with them.
(20:52):
So there's that, for sure.
Whereas, on the other hand, perhapsthey fear a little bit more that
going against Harrell could workagainst them if he were to win.
That's a piece of it, for sure.
I will say, though, I think there isa lot of sort of progressive pushback
to this MLK Labor endorsement.
We're seeing Kshama Sawant comeback out of the woodwork and
be pretty vocal about this.
(21:12):
Of course, some of Katie Wilson'sbiggest backers are frustrated by this.
I do think it is worth themreckoning with why Harrell is
not an unpopular figure in labor.
And, to some unions, a popular figure.
And it's because at the end of theday, they feel like their members
are getting pretty good deals outof the Mayor Harrell administration.
(21:33):
Again, we talked about the housingand transportation levies - those are
huge levies that are going to bring,particularly for the building and
construction trades, that's going tobring a lot of work to those members.
So, on a very real level, those membersare likely to benefit financially
from Mayor Harrell's proposalson housing and transportation.
You can make the argument Katie Wilsonwould have passed exactly the same levies.
(21:54):
That's fine.
But in real world terms, theyare benefiting from that.
And again, the city unions - Protec 17in particular, but a lot of the city
unions - Harrell personally got involvedwith those negotiations at the last
minute and gave them a very friendlydeal, even as the city was going towards
a pretty bad financial situation.
They got 5% raises, up to 5% raises - somepositions up to 30% raises - even when the
(22:20):
city was facing this major budget deficit.
So again - sure, yeah, I think thereis certainly some political think here
when they're considering who to endorse- who is going to retaliate, who's not
going to retaliate, that sort of thing.
I also think there is a legitimate caseto be made that some of the members just
feel like they're getting better paychecksbecause of what Bruce Harrell has done.
And I think that is worthacknowledging as well.
(22:42):
Yeah.
And especially with that retaliationconcern that - who knows, but may have
played a role in this endorsement.
I also think the composition of theCouncil is another thing that's different
now than was initially coming in, inthat you do have a Council where the
current majority has signaled at leastan openness to retreating on a lot of
(23:04):
the progress that has been made, that wehave some councilmembers who have talked
about wanting to go back on raises tothe minimum wage, to pause some of those,
to have some what most consider prettyanti-labor actions across the board.
And seeing that as muchmore of a possibility, much
more immediately possible.
(23:25):
Yeah, that's a great point - I shouldhave made it before - which is the
changes to particularly app-baseddelivery driver wage law and the
tip credit for small businesses.
Those were two things that came uplast year that ended up going nowhere.
There were a few reasons that endedup going nowhere, but a big one was
the mayor's office was signalingthat they didn't support them.
(23:47):
And so that put the City Council in aposition where they would have had to
go over the mayor, or get a veto-proofmajority for these changes that just
did not exist on the City Council,particularly when Tanya Woo was asked
to recuse herself from those votes.
And so, more than just thefinancial situation, Harrell took
some pretty concrete steps thatwere quite friendly to labor.
(24:08):
And so, can you say that BruceHarrell is the biggest labor
champion that the city's ever seen?
Certainly not.
There are some issues - his oppositionto the new tax on high-earning companies
for social housing - that rubbed a lot ofpeople in the labor world the wrong way.
His office's rollout of anew payday system in the
city has gone horribly wrong.
He's mandated that city workerscome back to the office - that
(24:29):
has not been particularly popular.
But again, in contrast to what theCity Council is doing, there has
not been enough reason for labor tospend time and energy opposing Bruce
Harrell and backing somebody else.
What they really want tospend time and energy doing is
opposing Sara Nelson, frankly.
And they are doing that - they'resupporting Dionne Foster largely.
(24:49):
And so I think they just don'tsee an enemy in Bruce Harrell,
though he's not perfect.
I don't think they see them as a majorimpediment to doing what they want to do.
And that combined with theircalculation that he's probably
going to win - again, that's theirthinking, not necessarily mine.
And the cherry on top being - ifKatie Wilson wins, they'll still
be able to work with her just fine.
(25:10):
I just don't think thatthey have been given enough
motivation to back somebody else.
And I think it is worth hearing themout on that if you're on the progressive
left - that at the end of the day,labor has done pretty well under Bruce
Harrell, and I don't think that thatshould be so easily and quickly dismissed.
Yeah.
I also don't think this is necessarilyout of character with what we've seen
(25:34):
with labor over the past 10, 15 years.
No, exactly - yeah.
They endorsed Jenny Durkan, MLKLabor endorsed Jenny Durkan.
They endorsed against Kshama Sawant.
So this is not - MLK Labor isnot some far-left organization.
Although it is interesting inthat in 2020, they voted to kick
out the police union, and now arebacking the person who says they
(25:56):
want to grow the number of police.
So there's some whiplash politics inthat labor world, but certainly it is not
a bastion of far-left politics at all.
But at the end of the day, it doesconsolidate support for Bruce Harrell
in a way that tends to be prettypowerful in city politics, which
is - he can now credibly boost thebacking of both business and labor.
And will that win him alot of progressive votes?
(26:17):
Maybe not.
Will it blunt some of the groundswellfrom the left against him?
Probably.
Absolutely.
This is me chiming in after the fact.
This is after we've actually concludedour recording for today's show, but I
decided to come back because while we wererecording, there was news of a poll about
(26:38):
the mayor's race that was very relevantto the discussion that we just had.
And since we did such a deep dive,I decided it didn't make sense to
wait until next week to discuss this.
But this was just published in TheCascadia Advocate, a publication of the
Northwest Progressive Institute, or NPI.
Headline here says - Katie Wilson,36%, Bruce Harrell, 33%: NPI's May
(27:04):
2025 Civic Heartbeat poll findsstatistical tie in Seattle mayoral race.
So that's the headline.
Let me go through this alittle bit because that does
not tell the whole story.
So what this starts off discussing- it's a poll about the mayor's race.
Starts off asking whether peopleapprove or disapprove of Bruce
(27:26):
Harrell's job performance - 37% approve,45% disapprove, 18% aren't sure.
So a net performancerating of negative 8%.
Instead of polling all of the peoplein the primary, they said they thought
that Katie Wilson and Bruce Harrellseemed to be the likely frontrunners and
(27:48):
likely to advance - according to theirestimation - to the general election.
So they just decided to poll testthe two of them head-to-head.
So it asks - If the 2025 general electionfor Mayor of Seattle were being held
today, and the candidates were thefollowing, who would you vote for?
25% said Bruce Harrell, 18% said KatieWilson, 56% said they weren't sure.
(28:16):
So here you have in this poll,Bruce Harrell leading by seven
percentage points, with 56% beingunsure of who they would vote for.
Huge undecided.
This is not the oddest thing tosee for an undecided percentage
going into a local election.
But it is notable that only 25% of thepeople said that they would vote for Bruce
(28:40):
Harrell - that's unusual for an incumbent.
So where the headline of the pollcomes from is the follow-up question
asked of undecided voters only.
Said - Here are two statements fromthese mayoral candidates about their
priorities and vision for Seattle.
Please read each carefully.
Then, if you had to choose,who would you vote for?
The first statement says, "We'vedelivered public safety solutions,
(29:03):
kept parks and sidewalks open andaccessible while moving people into
shelter and housing with services,made historic investments in affordable
housing, prioritized a transportationsystem focused on safety, and passed
nation-leading climate legislation,"Bruce Harrell's website says.
"But there is more work to do - this isthe time for proven leadership to stand up
for our values and to keep Seattle movingforward as a city that is welcoming,
(29:27):
affordable, and safe." The secondstatement says, "The incumbent mayor has
been a fixture in city hall since 2008.
More people are sleeping unshelteredon our streets than ever before.
Working families arestruggling to stay afloat.
We can do so much better.
And as we face unprecedentednational threats, we must do
better," Katie Wilson's websitesays. "When I step into the mayor's
(29:49):
office, I'll be working for you.
I love this city, and I know thatwe can solve our most pressing
problems and accomplish great thingstogether." Then asks - If you had
to choose, who would you vote for?
Those responses had Katie Wilson at 34%,Bruce Harrell at 15%, and Not sure 51%.
So the combined answer is the aggregate ofboth of those - have Katie Wilson landing
(30:14):
at 36%, Bruce Harrell landing at 36%,and those who still aren't sure at 30%.
So this was a survey that was in thefield from May 10th to May 14th - Saturday
through Wednesday - of 522 likely November2025 Seattle general election voters.
(30:37):
Poll was conducted for the NorthwestProgressive Institute by Change Research
and has a modeled margin of error of 4.4%.
So just wanted to throwthat into our conversation.
We were talking about how perceptionsof the electability of one or both
may have played a role in some ofthe endorsements in the mayoral race.
(31:00):
And now we have one data point that saysthis may be a really competitive race.
Well, there's another recententrant into this race that
we haven't talked about yet.
And I don't know that we have a greatidea of where he stands on all of these
issues, but Joe Mallahan, former Seattlemayoral candidate back in 2009, who
(31:26):
lost a very, very close race to formerMayor Mike McGinn, is into this race.
He does, going in, seeminglypull from Bruce Harrell's more
corporate base, some would think.
But I don't know that he's necessarilysaid - I'm Mr. Corporate - or that
he's articulated that himself.
(31:46):
So how is he positioned and do wehave an idea on where he stands
on issues important to labor?
Yeah, we haven't heard a ton from him.
In his announcement, he seemed to befocusing on some of the workplace issues
that have been reported on, both inthe Seattle Police Department and the
mayor's office - thinking specificallyof Monisha Harrell and some of what she
(32:08):
has said about working in that office.
So that was part of his announcement,which I thought was interesting.
It was neither a progressive normore conservative flank of Bruce
Harrell, it was more about the wayin which he was running the city.
Joe Mallahan is interestingbecause we have not heard from him
since he ran for mayor in 2009.
My colleague Jim Brunner had pulledup some of his statements when he lost
(32:29):
that race, talking about how this is notthe end you will see of Joe Mallahan,
I'll be around, I'll be involved.
As far as I can tell, thathasn't been true at all.
I haven't heard from him once since 2009.
So I don't know what the JoeMallahan constituency is.
That said, I think the only kind of realchallengers we've seen to Bruce Harrell
- probably from the left in Katie Wilson andperhaps Ry Armstrong - I suppose it makes
(32:52):
sense that you would see somebody who's alittle more moderate also challenging him.
But again, what the lane isthere - it feels narrow to me.
Look forward to hearingmore from Joe Mallahan.
I actually do look forward tohearing more from Joe Mallahan.
Curious to see where he'sat and what his plans are.
Now, we did recently pass the filingdeadline, where candidates have to
(33:15):
officially declare their intent torun for office by early mid-May.
So we know now who is definitelyon races, who will definitely
be appearing on ballots.
Are there any races that you feel areparticularly interesting or exciting?
Yeah, well, I should sayall of them - that is not
(33:36):
entirely true across the board.
I would say the race - AlexisMercedes Rinck's seat is not going
to be particularly interesting, sowe can kind of set that one aside.
But for my money, the mostinteresting one is Sara Nelson's seat.
I think it's going to be tight.
I think it's going to be competitive.
I think Dionne Foster will havea lot of establishment support
(33:57):
and is being represented by - Ibelieve she's being represented
by - Christian Sinderman's firm.
So she has - this has the trappingsof a very legitimate Seattle campaign.
I think Sara Nelson is really theface of the current City Council.
And I think people on both sides willtell you that this race is a bellwether
in a lot of ways - if the population ishappy with what the City Council more
(34:19):
generally is doing, they will probablyreward Sara Nelson with another term.
If they are frustrated with anypieces of it, they will probably
take it out on Sara Nelson.
And so I just think we're goingto learn the most about how the
city is feeling based on theresults of that particular race.
And if Sara Nelson wins, it is reallyaffirming to her style of leadership,
(34:39):
which is not everybody's cup oftea by any stretch - but it is of
a particular persuasion, and it isvery committed to that persuasion.
If she loses, it will really fundamentallyreshape that City Council because she is
the most prominent member at this point.
And represents this wave of moremoderate City Council people that came
in - she is the figurehead of that.
(34:59):
She's the President.
If she goes down, the numbers arestill in the favor of the moderates,
but it would really undercut what Ithink a lot of them view as a mandate.
Absolutely.
Now, there are some other races that Ithink are interesting - at the top of that
list is the King County Executive race.
After Dow Constantine resigned togo run Sound Transit, we now have
(35:22):
County Executive Shannon Braddockthrough the end of this term.
But what is now an open seat in thiselection, with current King County
Councilmembers Claudia Balducci,Girmay Zahilay both running.
John Wilson in the race, alongwith a few other candidates.
That - I don't know that we can call it.
(35:43):
Certainly, it looks like among the LDs,Girmay Zahilay is getting some of those
Democratic Party endorsements, but thatdoesn't always tell the whole story.
How do you see that shaping up?
Yeah, it's interesting.
I think it's certainly notable that thisis the first time in 16 years that Dow
Constantine has not been on the ballot.
That opens things up quite a bit.
(36:03):
My intuition for King County races is notprobably as refined as it is for Seattle
races, because King County includes a lotof - it's not just Seattle, of course.
You can't just appeal to Seattle voters.
You have to appeal to, in some cases,straight up kind of rural voters - there
are fairly rural parts of King County.
And so I think if this was a Seattlerace, my sense would be that Girmay
(36:28):
Zahilay holds the advantage becauseof what you said - some of the
local Democratic groups and thingslike that seem to be backing him.
He's got endorsements that wouldsuggest he's in a strong position.
But when you include other partsof King County, I don't know.
I think Claudia Balducci - shewas the mayor of Bellevue and is
pretty well liked on the Eastside.
And so I think that'scertainly going to factor in.
(36:50):
My gut tells me this is a racebetween Zahilay and Balducci,
and that John Wilson will likelynot make it through the primary.
And then once we get to the generalelection, I don't know - I do think
the Eastside's vote is going tobe important here in determining
who actually takes that seat.
Yeah, absolutely - that'sgoing to be one to watch.
Some other ones that are just on my radarthat I think are really interesting,
(37:12):
where potentially a lot is at stake.
One, the Seattle School Board elections.
I think three out of the four seatsup will have competitive primaries
that will be on the primary ballot.
A couple of those seats haveseveral candidates in there.
And we just saw a lot of rancorand real consternation in a lot of
(37:34):
what's on deck for the school board.
Talk of school closures, a rescindingof a school closure plan, really big
deficit that they're facing, a Seattlesuperintendent who is departing,
there's going to be a new one on deck,a lot of programs are up in the air
and there's a lot of uncertainty withongoing budget concerns - there's a
(37:55):
lot on the table for School Board.
There's a few different directionsthat could go that are going to be
real consequential for perhaps decades.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Then King County Council District5 seat - that was Councilmember
Dave Upthegrove's seat.
He was elected to be our stateSuperintendent of Public Lands,
(38:16):
so now we have that open seat.
With a number of candidates there - one,Steffanie Fain, wife of former legislator
Joe Fain, Republican legislatorJoe Fain there, who has gotten some
early moderate endorsements, businessendorsements there, has a lot of money.
But some are questioning if she istoo conservative for the district and
(38:40):
potentially going to be weighed downby some of the baggage of her husband.
We'll see there.
Then in the 33rd LegislativeDistrict competition between
Edwin Obras and Kevin Schilling.
Edwin had received the appointmentfollowing Karen Kaiser's retirement, Tina
Orwall's movement into the Senate seat,which left a Representative seat open.
(39:04):
He was appointed to that and is beingchallenged by Burien Mayor Kevin
Schilling, who has made lots of news forhow he and that council have decided to
principally approach taking a really,really hard - some would say draconian,
some would say unconstitutional - approachto homelessness and some of the
(39:25):
outlaws and bans that they have there.
So that's going to be one thatis definitely going to impact the
direction of legislating for that seat.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Final thing I wanted to talk about wasTent City 4, which you covered this
week - rushed to move to a new site.
(39:46):
What happened here?
This has been such a chronic problemin Seattle - that we've seen lots
and lots of sweeps, or record numberof sweeps, moving people from one
place to another - and this seemsto fall square within that category.
What happened here?
Yeah, I would say, actually, this isslightly different than the general
sweeps because Tent City 4 is in therealm of sanctioned homeless encampments.
(40:10):
So this is an organization that has beenaround for 20 years or something like that
- these various different tent cities.
And so their whole thing is - and thisis intentional, to try and cut down
on too much neighborhood oppositionis - they move into a place and they
don't stay there for more than a year.
And so they've been in Lake City, at theMennonite Church there, for the last year.
(40:32):
That year was coming up.
They thought they had a place thatthey were going to move - to the
old Lake City Community Center,which had closed because of a fire.
And so that was the plan - wasthey were going to move there.
At the last minute, there was kind ofintense opposition to this happening.
And then that was channeled byCouncilmember Cathy Moore, who on the
City Council, but also on the King CountyRegional Homelessness Authority Board.
(40:53):
She really brought forward a lot of theseconcerns she was hearing from neighbors.
Basically, the argument she wasmaking is that Lake City is being
asked to host this encampment toomuch, and so that meant that this
deal fell through at the last minute.
They revived the deal - sortof - to avoid basically all these
people scattering to the winds.
And agreed that the tent city couldstay at the Lake City Community
(41:16):
Center for up to six months whilethey look for somewhere else.
But I do think it gets at the largerchallenges when you're talking about
siting places for homeless people tolive, which is - it is really difficult
to navigate the neighborhood dynamics.
And this City Council - and I wouldsay in particular, Cathy Moore - is
very sensitive to those things.
(41:36):
She is very responsive to"neighborhood concerns" and that
manifests itself in various ways.
And Tent City 4 moving just a fewblocks from where they were before
really struck a nerve with her andapparently some of her constituents.
And so that has made the situationmore complicated for everybody.
Right now, they have aplace where they can be.
After six months - or earlier thanthat - becomes a little less certain.
(42:00):
Is there a chance they mayhave to go earlier than that?
The deal was between one to sixmonths that they can stay there.
If I had to guess, I would say thatthey probably are there for six months
while they look for another place.
I think the detente was that it notbe longer than six months, which is a
shorter stay than they usually have.
If they find somewhere else beforethen, they would probably move again.
(42:22):
But I think the general belief is thatthis Lake City Community Center is
not their permanent home right now.
Got it.
Well, we will continue to follow that.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, May 23rd, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(42:42):
Our insightful co-host today wasSeattle Times City Hall reporter,
David Kroman - always insightful.
You can find David onBluesky at @KromanDavid.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
And you can find me there too - at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, or wherever else you get
(43:02):
your podcasts - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get thepodcast full versions on Friday and
Tuesday delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can also get a full texttranscript of this episode and links
to the resources referenced in theshow at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
(43:23):
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
time.
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.