Wrong. She has never voted for Trump. She has always voted Democrat. Where you are getting this from is because she tried for Lt. Gov and since the Dems obviously had their progressive choice, and the Independents stood no chance, she had to file as as Republican in that race in order to receive any kind of funding as a candidate. No different than Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat even though he is an Independent.

No one really knows who Davison voted for in the presidential race except herself (and any household members who may have seen her actual ballot). The real problem with Davison is that she deliberately accepted the endorsement and support of an anti-democratic, cryptic-white-supremacist, pro-racist-police organization (i.e., the Republican Party under Trump). Regardless of any public statements she’s made since then, the City Council is absolutely justified in trying to keep her on as short a leash as possible, at least until she demonstrates her independence from the Trumpian mindset with her actions in office. I for one am not optimistic this will happen.

Glenn, I don’t think there’s any need to be “consistent” in this particular case. Republicans in other states who circumscribed the powers of Democratic officials had no reason to do so other than pure partisanship and vindictiveness (and they didn’t really try to pretend otherwise). In Davison’s case there is a very real possibility, I would say even a likelihood, that she will try to undo years of difficult work — by her predecessor, the council and grass-roots advocates — to make Seattle’s criminal justice apparatus less oppressive toward the poor and people of color. And I think most Seattleites would reject such an effort: while Davison won the general top-two election, don’t forget that a solid majority of voters chose a more progressive option in the primary. Unfortunately, the less experienced, less temperate progressive candidate emerged as Davison’s opponent, and it’s not too surprising that enough people either considered Thomas-Kennedy just too much of a risk or else found the resulting choice dismaying enough to skip it on their ballot (I confess I very nearly did the latter). In other words, Davison’s election was most likely a fluke, and I hope that at some level she understands this. But as I said, I’m not optimistic.

Sometimes Democratic victories are flukes! Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 only because right-leaning voters (who were still a slight majority back then) were split between Bush and Perot. But however you want to characterize Davison’s victory, I don’t believe she has a mandate for a wholesale policy reversion to the pre-Holmes era and I hope she recognizes this and doesn’t try it. But her recent past suggests she will, and I’m glad the council recognizes this danger. Note that unlike Republican legislatures in red states they haven’t actually taken any of her power away, they’re just adding a new layer of accountability (something conservatives used to be all in favor of until Trump came along). Until she demonstrates her independence from the Trumpian lock-’em-up mindset that dominates the Republican party these days, I think that’s a prudent and reasonable move.