On Thursday, April 22, the King County Superior Court finalized ballot language for the recall effort against Councilmember Kshama Sawant, upholding the Recall Campaign’s preferred version of the synopsis which obscures the fact that the allegations against Kshama are simply that…allegations.
What you may not realize is that under Washington State’s recall law, charges do not need to be proven and the accused party is not given any ability to dispute their truthfulness.
Kshama did not break the law. Nonetheless, despite the recall process explicitly saying that courts do not decide on innocence or guilt, the way that the charges will now appear on the ballot makes them appear as statements of fact upheld by a court. This is profoundly undemocratic.
It is no accident that two of the three charges against Councilmember Sawant are for unambiguously standing in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, with the remaining charge connected to her leadership in the Tax Amazon movement. We should be clear: this attack against Kshama is part of a broader assault on democracy which includes 81 anti-protest laws currently being introduced around the country.
Let’s take a closer look into the three charges.
The charge relating to Kshama’s support for the Tax Amazon movement alleges that she illegally spent public resources on the issue of taxing big business because…Tax Amazon later filed a ballot initiative which ultimately did not even go on the ballot? To borrow a phrase from the dystopian Orwell novel 1984, Councilmember Sawant is being accused of a ‘thoughtcrime’.
This is not only puzzling, but it presents a dangerous precedent – how can working-class elected representatives organize on progressive issues if these issues may sometime in the future result in a ballot initiative?
The second charge relates to the fact that Kshama let protestors into City Hall last summer. Kshama does not deny that she opened the doors of City Hall to community members for a masked, one-hour Black Lives Matter rally in an empty and ventilated City Hall. The rally provided a powerful shot of confidence to the movement, pressuring the Seattle City Council to pass a first-in-the-nation ban on chemical weapons just days later. But the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against Kshama on the basis that this anti-racism rally was “not city business” raises a serious question: if City Hall is not welcome to the people it is supposed to represent, then who exactly is it for?
The third and final charge alleges that Kshama used her official position as a City Councilmember to “lead” a protest march to Mayor Durkan’s private residence. Police accountability activist Katrina Johnson, whose cousin Charleena Lyles was shot 7 times by the Seattle police, rejects this dishonest narrative: “This [charge] is completely false. The rally was organized and led by families, like mine, whose loved ones have been killed at the hands of the Seattle Police department. Kshama was the only City Councilmember to speak at our rally, and she spoke powerfully in solidarity with us since Charleena was killed…”
As undemocratic as this ruling is on its face, what’s equally striking is the sharp contrast between the recall against Kshama and the recall cases recently thrown out by the same Court.
In October, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the grassroots recall of Amazon’s Mayor, Democrat Jenny Durkan, who oversaw the vicious police crackdown against Seattle protesters. Among other dangerous weapons, Seattle police under Mayor Durkan used teargas during a respiratory pandemic, which can increase the spread of the coronavirus and cause long-term harm in individuals with asthma or other respiratory conditions.
The same court also dismissed the recall case against the COVID-denying Sheriff of Thurston County, John Snaza. Snaza refused to require his police officers to wear masks, putting ordinary people in even greater danger than usual at the hands of the police.
This ruling is highly political: it is an attack against Kshama for unambiguously standing with the Black Lives Matter movement and working people. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the courts for justice any more than we can rely on the police.
While Kshama is not in fact guilty of any crimes, there is one thing she does plead guilty of — something she has never attempted to hide. From day one of taking office, Kshama has been unshakably accountable to working people.
From helping to win the first $15 minimum wage of any major U.S. city to taxing Amazon, Kshama has always been clear that as an elected representative, she cannot serve two bosses: she cannot be accountable to both big business and working people. In the view of Seattle’s corporate establishment, there is no greater crime.
To wealthy for-profit real-estate developers and top evicting landlords like recall donor John Stephanus of Epic Asset management, Kshama is guilty of using her seat to win a series of landmark renters’ rights victories, limiting their ability to gouge their tenants. To Amazon, which unleashed a staggering sum of nearly $1.5 million against Kshama and other progressive candidates in 2019, Kshama is guilty of making them pay (a small part of) their fair share through progressive taxes to fund affordable housing and green jobs. And to anti-union, Republican, corporate executives donating to the recall like Frank Shrontz, the former CEO and chairman of Boeing, Kshama is guilty of fighting unambiguously for working people.
Corporate elites donating to the recall already include members of three of the five Washington State families described by Forbes as “billionaire dynasties,” the McCaw, Pigott, and Nordstrom families. After three failed attempts to defeat Kshama in democratic elections (despite unleashing increasingly massive sums of corporate cash), big business and the right-wing want a do-over.
They have a new trick up their sleeves this time: to use this recall to a low-turnout special election that skews wealthier, whiter, and more conservative. The Recall Campaign manager openly admitted that he does not want the recall to appear on the higher-turnout November general election ballot.
The recall campaign will now move forward in their attempt to gather roughly 10,700 valid signatures from residents of Kshama’s District 3. With the recall already demonstrating an eagerness to blur the line between fact and fiction, we can expect them to further ramp up their disinformation campaign.
This Recall Campaign is a dangerous attack on the right to protest, with deep ramifications for working people in Seattle and beyond. We have no choice but to fight back.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
It’s not about break the law, it’s about abusing power.
Exactly.
Why did you just post blatant propaganda?
Here’s how CHS Community Posts work:
Let me rephrase. Why did you approve this story?
Come on jseattle, don’t act like you don’t know what you’re doing here.
If you expect us to take your blog seriously you have a responsibility to reach out to the recall campaign for rebuttal. This is a massive issue for our district and both sides deserve equal space to make their cases.
It’s an op-ed.
It would be nice to hear a rebuttal of this op-ed by another writer, though – show both sides of the issue.
Agree! It would only be fair if this blog’s owner (JSeattle) would contact the Recall campaign and request a rebuttal of this article and it’s blatant/untrue propaganda.
Actually you know that the recall campaign can just write and submit its own Community post without making Justin do their work?
This public service announcement has been brought to you by the Socialist Alternative Ministry of Propaganda.
Drain the Sawant!
Your partisan garbage hurts the effort. Please stop.
This is tremendously gross that you’re publishing this as a “Community Post,” which I would assume would trend op-ed in nature This is not op-ed. This is a political campaign that is authored by a paid member of said political campaign. In fact, the author Eva Metz was Kshama Sawant’s Finance Director for her 2019 campaign.
Post all the advertorial you want, but a disclosure to your readers would certainly be appreciated. Something tells me if I submitted Jeff Bezos’ final letter to shareholders as a “Community Post,” it wouldn’t see the light of day, nor should it.
so many falsehoods here. Kshama does not represent me and I have been in District 3 over five decades
That wall of words just about has me convinced to vote to recall her.
Sawantist: You are anathema to competent government; it is all about OUR MOVEMENT to you.
An old addage in politics goes, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
A whole lot of explaining there.
Glad to have you. Her divisive M.O. and unwillingness to compromise or listen is what got her to the point where she felt perfectly within her rights to violate her responsibilities and abuse the power of her office.
If you find the charges substantive and warranting recall, please sign.
Generally speaking, this blog has been good information with a neutral perspective – letting the readers decipher the facts. I understand it’s somewhat of an open forum. . . But it is a bit of a letdown to allow biased or one sided viewpoints into the forum. In other words, it makes some readers hesitate to come back if the information will be one sided.
Here’s the thing, all news forums (blogs included) have a perspective or a point of view. There’s no such thing as being neutral. It’s a myth. ( For the record, I don’t agree with this op-ed and couldn’t even get past the first paragraph tbh). But I don’t expect this blog to be neutral on everything that is posted because that’s just not realistic.
It’s our job as consumers of media to always read with a little skepticism and know when to read between the lines, as they say. I’ve read (and commented) on this blog for a long time. I appreciate the information/resource it provides to the community. I’m also aware that it has a point of view that I don’t always agree with and that’s OK. I don’t often share it’s point of view on the protests/CHOP, homeless encampments and Sawant. I still find plenty of articles on here that I find useful and no matter the topic, I enjoy reading the comments and seeing what some of my neighbors have to say.
That said, I do think it’s reasonable to allow the Recall Sawant campaign the chance for a rebuttal.
They can submit their own community post. I don’t have access to the inner workings of the blog but Justin seems pretty skilled at surfacing content relevant to the neighborhood so if it met the guidelines, do you think he would not post it?
Unfortunately anyone who dares to post an alternative position will be fire-bombed by the fascist anti-fascists for daring to challenge the revolution and their cult leader. She is dangerous and needs to be removed ASAP.
The Recall Sawant Petitions have arrived! Please sign!
Wow. What a pathetic abdication of editorial integrity. To allow this medium to be used as a platform for propaganda of this nature is really sad. At the very least this “community post” should not have been elevated to such a prominent position. I hope the esteemed editors didn’t pull any muscles genuflecting so enthusiastically to the cult of Sawant.
It’s a COMMUNITY POST submitted by someone external to the blog. BTW, pretty much most content can be construed as propoganda. Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder.
Kshama Sawant traveled to Pennsylvania in 2016 to campaign against Hillary Clinton. Pennsylvania ended up swinging for Trump by a small margin. I don’t know that she convinced a lot of PA voters, but her actions really made me question her judgement and competence as a leader.
https://crosscut.com/2016/11/kshama-sawant-against-clinton-on-the-defense
God lord. Let 2016 go. Move on.
Literally hundred of thousands of Americans died unnecessarily because of how Trump handled Covid. The fact that Sawant may have helped get him in office is a relevant piece of information when discussing whether or not she is fit for office.
Hahahahahahaha…*gasp* HAHAhahahaha…
Disappointing this appears on the main page and is titled “Community post.” It is an opinion post that attempts to rationalize her improper behavior. Many (most hopefully) in this community do not support her and hope she is recalled. I doubt a Community post supporting the recall would be “approved.” If it was, no way the editors would promote it to the front page. And that is a shame because people can grow by accepting (not shouting down) those with different perspectives. This is called diversity of thought. Oh, and can someone who makes $500K per year claim they are working class?
This website has always had a noticeable pro-Sawant (and anti-Sawant-opponents) tilt, as can be seen from the recent “They’re trying to recall Sawant” headline. But allowing Sawant’s finance director to use this website as Sawant’s own personal propaganda outlet is a new low.
You have this marked as a “community post.” Is the finance director for the Sawant campaign — an employee paid by Sawant — a member of our community worthy of getting a “community post”? Or is it just that you really like Sawant and wanted to use your website to help defend her?
I’ve been a reader of this website for years but can’t recall ever seeing a “community post” like this before. Is a propaganda op-ed from the Sawant campaign the first of many political op-eds to come, or is this a one-off where you let Sawant have her say using your site as a platform?
Will the Recall campaign be allowed to write a similar “community post” refuting the many, many falsehoods in this article (typical of the Sawant campaign)? Did you reach out to them to ensure that both sides were represented? Or are only the political campaigns you agree with allowed to do this?
Can I write a “community post” and have it published and promoted just like this one was? Or is it only certain high-profile “community members” — such as paid employees of the Sawant campaign — who are granted this privilege?
Perhaps you should read the link about how to submit a community post. It’s on the site.
Don’t have anything to contribute. Just stopped by to watch everyone froth in the comment section. Thanks for the post.
Ok, I’m getting worried that these commenters are going to get aneurysms from the high blood pressure this post induced. Can someone do a house call? Thank you.
Looks like all 30-ish of the supporters of her recall showed up to voice their disgust and predict that she’ll lose in a landslide, just like they predicted she’d lose the previous council elections in a landslide.
It is absurd and inaccurate to say that the Recall campaign is “anti-protest.” If this charge is referring to Sawant’s allowing her followers into a locked City Hall after-hours, in violation of pandemic rules, then the Recall campaign has every right to call this out as an illegal action. Likewise if it’s referring to her leading a crowd to Durkan’s home…. that location is private/protected because of the Mayor’s time as a federal prosecutor, as Sawant surely knows.
I will happily sign the recall petition. I don’t think she represents a significant portion of district 3–such as property owners
I’m going to sign it as someone who voted for her twice. I want her campaign to understand that she has alienated some of her supporters by abusing her power. I also was horrified by her actions during CHOP and how she abandoned us (her constituents) to a lawless mob during the pandemic. She minimized the murders that took place in CHOP and the crime that those of us who live in the zone endured. She doesn’t care about her constituents only “the cause”. Many of us that live in the neighborhood are the very working class people she claims to fight for but her actions last year proved that she doesn’t care about us. She’s a phony and a fraud.
I received this same post as a fundraising email from the “Save Sawant” campaign. Word for word the same, and also attributed to Eva Metz. So this blog is now just another conduit for Sawant’s fundraising campaign. Will also campaigns be offered similar access? Thanks for taking the mask off and making it so easy to see who you really are on this.
Please provide the location where I can sign the recall petition.
Please use the google device, it will probably be quicker.
Got mine in the mail today!
While there appears to be quite a bit of ill sentiment and backlash against the publication for this post I for one would like to thank the Sawant campaign for actually addressing the charges leveled against her. To date, they have fallen back on their typical playbook of demonizing and attacking their opponents as right wing agents of hate. The only problem in this case is that her opponents are the actual voters of District 3. Reading through this screed it is pretty clear that none of the charges against Councilmember Sawant are alleged. They all happened.
The question for voters really then isn’t whether these events happened, based on this “community post” there is no doubt they did, the question is whether they warrant the recall of Councilmember Sawant. What I find most troubling about all of this is not ONCE has Councilmember Sawant acknowledged she has done anything wrong. She has shown zero contrition for her actions nor any indication that will not do the exact same thing if given the opportunity in the future. In her world her actions are completely justified by the “movement”. She is morally right and the rules and regulations that dictate good governance simply don’t apply to her. That my friends is dangerous and how we end up with a true fascist state. I wholly reject the notion that recalling Sawant is some right wing conspiracy. Remember the last time the council replaced a sitting member they chose Kirsten Harris-Talley, hardly a MAGA hat wearing right winger. Do not be distracted by the name calling and conspiracy theories. This is about the malfeasance of Councilmember Sawant which she now admitted happened. I doubt we’ll see many more posts from her defending her actions because to do so will be to further admit her guilt. Sign the petition. Send a message that the politician is not greater than the system. Vote for accountability.
Well said!
She is an extremist and no better than Trump. They have the same playbook. I’m especially troubled by her opening City Hall for a protest during the pandemic. Her supporters stood inside that building, chanting and screaming which surely spread the virus and probably led to some people dying The fact that she could completely disregard public health policy and put this community at risk for a deadly virus is unconscionable.
This is not about being against protests but about being against politicians who abuse their power and put their constituents in harms way.
Hi, Justin! I’d like to nominate this post for consideration as a “Community Post” per CHS’ guidelines.
Nailed it. And while we wait for the recall campaign to submit their official rebuttal (which Justin will absolutely give similar billing, of course) your response should be bumped to the front page.
Replying to my own post to add that this wasn’t meant as a snarky comment. I do believe Justin will give equal billing to the recall campaign. I’m no fan of Sawant, but CHS has overall been a straight shooter and isn’t one to memory-hole opinions that run counter to their own. He’d have every opportunity when approving comments and doesn’t.
In retrospect, it would have been better (and more journalistically objective) for CHS (jseattle) to have asked the recall campaign to submit a rebuttal, and it could have been published next to the anti-recall post.
Everyone needs to keep donating and pushing to get rid of her and her team that seek to destroy Seattle. Capitol Hill has become a dirty, disgusting, crime ridden area of town. The last couple of years it has gotten ridiculous and scary. We need new leadership.
I gave up long ago hoping that chs would provide balanced reporting in area that involves sawant. Let’s not forget that it is an opinion blog.
I will however continue to be anonymous when I make donations to the recall sawant initiative, there is no way that I would trust putting my name and address into the hands of the rabid sawant supporters, and before you ask, I 100% think it is within their wheelhouse to invoke properly damage or bodily harm to anyone who supports the recall. I commend those who are braver than I and are more transparent than I. Unfortunately this gives her supporters fodder for making statements that it is a “right wing, racist” recall attempt. So be it.
sawant, her supporters, and the far right have very similar tactics in popularizing issues and elections: unsubstantiated derisive campaign slogans, aggressive fear based intimidation and understanding and exploiting the make up of the district . D3 has a significant population of amazon employees who are not eligible for voting in the district, as well as a population of young voters that work at amazon and feel guilt about their monetary compensation and have bought into sawants rants that it makes them bad people.
All that said, I don’t think that the people leading the recall effort understand who they are fighting against and how to take that fight to the streets as sawant does. Mailing flyers is pretty ineffective, postering campaigns, tables to collect signatures, and other means of propaganda is how to get her out, fight fire with fire.
Recall sawant needs to get on it and provide opportunity for volunteers.
Amazon literally paid for a candidate to oppose Sawant, but you’ve somehow performed the mental gymnastics to blame Amazon workers for voting in Sawant.
So kind of like your comment?
“Let’s not forget that it is an opinion blog.” — As you know, this is completely inaccurate. CHS is a community news blog and we have a decade of coverage now behind us to back that up. Our body of coverage about Sawant’s career and actions is complete, accurate, and fair.
Here are the most recent CHS stories centered on her:
Not all of it is investigative reporting. Many of these are briefs about new legislation in our day to day coverage of City Hall. But even in our briefs, CHS holds a light to City Hall and Sawant. For example, we were the only outlet to counter Sawant’s criticism of Puget Sound Energy with reporting on the investigation findings from the natural gas fire on E Cherry. A small example but that’s the kind of basic, day to day reporting CHS is proud to provide.
“. D3 has a significant population of amazon employees who are not eligible for voting in the district”
Why do you say this? As long as they live in D3, they have the right to vote.
Maybe because they aren’t US citizens and can’t vote
I assumed that he may be speaking of the Amazon employees who are H1-B visa or green card holders (and yes, thus ineligible to vote). The data is a bit hard to parse… but I gather that there may be up to around 10,000 visa positions and another 6,000 green card holder employees in the Seattle area? I’m sure that they don’t all live in D3 though…
She is disgusting on many levels, not the least of which is actively contributing to the decline of the quality and livability of this city.
It is also disgusting that this “news site” allowed this pro-Sawant propaganda and then plays coy.
Voted for her twice, planning to sign the recall. Sawant has misused the power of her office, repeatedly. And every time I hear the claim that recall supporters are “right-wing” or “racist”, I get more eager to sign. The argument that it’s about “defending the right to protest” seals the deal. (Note to Sawant: I’ve been protesting since before you were born).
I agree that district13tribute’s post would make a great Community Post. But really, the group leading the recall should be offered the chance first. Ideally, they should have before this ran.
JSeattle – you may want to rethink your statement that this blog’s coverage is ‘complete, accurate, and fair’ with respect to Sawant’s career on the city council. Give me a f***ing break! This blog’s coverage of the protest events last summer up until now have eroded my trust in your blog – down to the level of garbage. I only come here to see what restaurants are opening and that’s about it. It’s only a matter of time before you start to face an advertiser backlash for the direction you’ve decided to take. Just look at the comments – these are capital hill residents, and a lot of them are really sick of this.
Utter trash, this column. I plan to exercise my right to protest by signing the petition and voting to recall Sawant. The extremely far left does not have monopoly rights on protest.
Wow, people are still filling their diapers over this post. Incredible.
Really clarifying article on what this recall campaign is really about: attacking a working class representative for actually representing working people! It says something about the popularity of Kshama’s policies that they have to resort to dishonesty and character attacks to get their right-wing Recall campaign any traction.
Please stop calling it a “right-wing” Recall campaign. That is just not accurate.
“… the accused party is not given any ability to dispute their truthfulness.”
Really? Let’s actually visit the timeline where Sawant had every opportunity to dispute the truthfulness:
The court proceedings began with a Briefing on the Sufficiency of the Charges. We filed a brief in support of the petition, Sawant responded. We replied.
September 16, 2020: Judge Rogers held a hearing and ruled the same day. This briefing squarely addressed the sufficiency of the charges, and SAWANT argued this issue at the hearing.
September 18, 2020: We and SAWANT filed Proposed Modifications to the Ballot Synopsis.
September 28, 2020: SAWANT filed a Motion for Reconsideration. This was another opportunity to contest the sufficiency of the charges.
October 2, 2020: SAWANT appealed Judge Rogers’ order on the ballot synopsis to the Supreme Court.
October 23, 2020: SAWANT appealed Rogers’ denial of her Motion for Reconsideration to the state Supreme Court.
October 27, 2020: We filed a Motion for Accelerated Review.
November 3, 2020: SAWANT responded to our Motion for Accelerated Review.
November 5, 2020: We replied to Sawant’s response to our Motion for Accelerated Review.
November 23, 2020: SAWANT filed her opening brief. After the Supreme Court granted an expedited briefing schedule.
December 3, 2020: We responded to Sawant’s opening brief.
December 10, 2020: SAWANT filed a reply. This briefing, again, addressed the sufficiency of the charges.
January 7, 2021: The Supreme Court held their en banc conference to rule on Sawant’s appeal.
April 1, 2021: The Supreme Court issued its ruling that the Recall can proceed.
April 1, 2021: We filed a Motion for Certification and Transmission of the Ballot Synopsis.
April 8, 2021: SAWANT responded to our Motion for Certification. This was focused on the language of the synopsis, but Sawant used the language of the synopsis to contest the sufficiency of the charges, characterizing them as unproven and so on. .
April 22, 2021: The court held a hearing on the Motion for Certification. SAWANT made the same arguments about the synopsis language at this hearing.
April 23, 2021: We filed a brief in response to the Court’s request to clarify the number of days for signature gathering.
April 28, 2021: SAWANT responded to our brief.
April 29, 2021: We filed a very brief reply.
Sawant has had every opportunity to defend herself, and has taken them.
“With the recall already demonstrating an eagerness to blur the line between fact and fiction, we can expect them to further ramp up their disinformation campaign.“
Eva, I think the quote above you were meaning the Solidarity Campaign, because its clear it’s your eagerness to blur the line between fact and fiction and ramping up the disinformation campaign is well underway. So, stop gaslighting the constituents of District 3 with your divisive lies and mistruth.
Same old outrage in the comments. It would be hilarious if she wins again. This site will get so many more visits if it only focuses on dog parks, bike lanes, homeless, taxes, and Kshama/Nikkita.
1) Sawant used privileged information as she knowingly brought a crowd of people to Jenny Durkan’s home, the address of which is protected by law in conjunction with her work as a US Attorney. 2) Sawant brought a crowd into City Hall, which was closed due to Covid. This selfish and illegal action exposed both the crowd and guards to illness.
The recall is an effort to bring Sawant’s abuse of power front and center. Please don’t tell me that I’m a tool of the capitalist system, and that I want to stifle legitimate protest! I’m a voter in the 3rd District who feels strongly that Sawant doesn’t represent me or the basic interests of the District (I’m looking at you, potholes!)
D3 stands with Sawant!
Ridiculous that the courts wouldn’t let us recall Tear Gas Jenny
The right to protest is not threatened by the recall campaign. To state otherwise is a lie.
The attempt to conflate the Black Lives Matter campaign and holding Kshama Sawant accountable for her actions is dishonest. They are separate issues. Black Lives do matter. Ethics, integrity, and honesty also matter.
The claim that the recall campaign is run by right wingers is false.
One can support both the recall and rent control, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Sawant’s supporters would do well to start using reason and evidence when voicing support and avoid engaging in false equivalences, employing ad hominem arguments or trying to change the topic. Even though such tactics are fun and often very effective political weapons, you can do better.