A proposal from a veteran member of the Seattle City Council that would alter the timing of the city’s district elections in an effort to improve the stability of the governing body and avoid potential waves of churn needs more time — and more feedback — before it moves forward.
The proposed resolution to alter the Seattle district elections is being led by citywide Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda. If approved by the council, the decision would go on the November 2024 ballot for voters to choose if it makes more sense to stagger the elections for the council seats or keep the district votes bundled as they are this November.
Seattle has a total of nine council positions: two are citywide, and seven are related to geographic districts. Currently, positions for Districts 1 through 7 are up for election all at the same time. Mosqueda’s goal of this resolution is to split up those nine positions as evenly as possible throughout election cycles.
But there is opposition to the plan from the council’s more conservative wing.
“The fundamental part of my reservation about this whole thing is that this was a citizen’s initiative, and it was put on the ballot in 2013 by Seattle Districts Now, and I don’t believe we should be changing our election system—especially not one set by citizens’ initiative without a really good reason,” Councilmember Sara Nelson said at Wednesday’s Finance & Housing Committee meeting where it was decided to tap the brakes on the proposal and give community groups more time to discuss the changes.
Nelson said she understood the rates of councilmember turnover, but “that’s what elections are for,” she added.
“I think it’s a really positive thing for the stability of delivery of services, institutional knowledge, and continuity for residents of the city,” Mosqueda said.
The plan had been to move forward with a committee and then a full city council vote on the proposal this month. Now, the idea will be put through a community feedback process that is still being shaped.
Seattle for decades had been represented by an entirely at-large city council, meaning that everyone in the city voted for everyone on the council. After a voter-approved change in 2013, the city went to its current makeup in 2015; two seats remain at large, and the remaining seven are elected by district. When initially adopted, each district was drawn to include roughly 88,000 people. Capitol Hill was placed in the 3rd district, which stretches from the Montlake Cut south to I-90, and then a bit further south to include a piece of Mount Baker, and from Lake Washington to roughly I-5, though it extends over to include the northern part of the Denny Triangle. Last year, redistricting shifted the D3 borders to fully include the Eastlake neighborhood while carving of a swath of First Hill highrises to move into downtown’s D7.
According to Mosqueda, under the staggering proposal, citywide positions 8 and 9 would remain in the same election cycle, allowing for the city to stagger the remaining seven positions in a relatively even distribution for city-wide and at-large positions.
Beginning in the 2027 election, council seats 2, 4, and 6 would have two-year terms, and in 2029, those seats would be up for election during the same time as citywide seats 8 and 9. For every four years that follow, those five council seats would be up for election at the same time and would serve four-year terms.
“The odd districts would have their elections two years later, leaving space to continue the conversation about moving to even-year elections at a different point—when and if the state legislature authorizes—the city [can] consider that,” Mosqueda said.
In 2031, Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 would be up for election at the same time, and every four years thereafter.
Voter turnout within King County is stronger in odd numbered years. In 2022, voter turnout was about 65% while in 2021, voter turnout was a mere 43%. Voter turnout in previous election years show similar results. Mosqueda’s original resolution proposal sought to shift city elections from odd to even numbered years, but since last week, has been removed and placed on the backburner.
“It is not unreasonable for the council to consider improvements,” Councilmember Lisa Herbold (D – 1) said. “Again, it will be up to a vote of the people—like the original measure—to consider whether or not they agree with those changes, so, I believe this question is fully within the authority of the council to ask the voters to consider.”
Councilmembers Andrew Lewis (D – 7) shared his concerns. Lewis said he will provide himself time to hear what constituents and stakeholders have to say. Lewis primarily hopes to garner feedback from the Seattle Districts Now Coalition, which pushed for a charter amendment in 2019. Voters approved the amendment, which allowed for nine at-large district positions to be split to 7 and 2 citywide positions. The 2013 charter amendment also established procedures for redistricting to occur every decade.
Nelson said she hasn’t heard this concern among her citywide constituents, and that the issue has not been demonstrated to her. She wanted to know what the problem that needs fixing is.
“Congress is on the ballot every two years,” Nelson said. “So, my point is that [I’m] very concerned about what we’re trying to do here.”
Nelson said staggering elections could create even more disruptions to city government, but that elected officials could become reelected, which would not be a disruption. On the other hand, the current election cycle could allow for 7 council members to cycle out at the same time, which could create severe disruptions.
Councilmembers will incorporate feedback from constituents and stakeholders over the next three months, and will meet again in December for rediscussion.
By then, the leader of the staggering effort will be making new plans. Mosqueda is in a race to join the King County Council with that campaign coming to a head in November.
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.
Can we go back to all citywide seats on the council? Our problems are city wide and it’s clear the local district councilmembers aren’t really accessible to their constituents (at least not in D3)
Exactly – the council has too much sway to NOT have them elected by the entire city. The districts thing is a terrible set up…
Seeing as D3 is getting a new rep soon, this isn’t really a relevant issue.
Mosqueda busy trying to ensure progressive domination of Council continues even after she departs to King County Council. Sara Nelson is right on. What is the problem we are trying to fix here? This on top of ranked choice voting, which will be implemented soon here. Can we not leave well enough alone?
Agree. Coming from Mosqueda, this is certainly a move to try to have a more leftist Council, which we have had but don’t need. Throw the bums out this November!
This just goes to show you politicians of all stripes, from the most MAGA wackjobs on right to the most progressive on the left, will do whatever it takes to manipulate the electoral process to assure victory.
Like all politicians, they are driven by making adjustment to the election system to given themselves an advantage. What we really need is a referendum to go back to city-wide elections, so the council is responsible to the whole community, not just the special interest groups in their district. Long time residents understand that city government got a lot more dysfunctional and the city started to unravel when we shifted from citywide elections to district elections.
Moving elections to even years seems more important to increasing the number of people who vote in our elections (hope our state legislature will come through to make that possible!)
Would Mosqueda be saying this if moderates were a majority on the Council?
Moderates are a majority on the council, look what they’ve gotten done. Very moderate milquetoast nothings.
Progressives have had a 7-2 majority since 2019. And yes, they’re gotten little useful accomplished. They threatened to defund police by 50% in 2020. While they took selfies with rioters in the CHOP zone.
I understand the pro to the idea of holding more elections during the high turn out years. That perspective implies that more voters will participate, and that is a legitimate consideration. However, during the presidential election years, the issues around electing a president and other higher state offices tend to overshadow discussions of local issues and candidates. it takes focus and resources away from the local candidates. While historically, it is a heavy lift to get more voters to pay attention during the so-called off years, some good does come from paying attention to the local candidates and issues. Are voters really paying better attention to local issues during the presidential election years? I also assume that there is significant drop-off in number of voters who continue down the ballot during the presidential years. I don’t have the research here to know how the number who participate in voting down ballot in those years to the number of voters in the non presidential years.
New title “In bid for partisan advantage, council’s leftist wing proposes changing election rules to consolidate power so they can continue to push their failed policies and performative dance around homeless encampments, criminal penalties, and policing that have degraded the quality of life in Seattle”
In what world is Mosqueda a leftist? Sawant is the only leftist on the council, and she’s outbound. Mosqueda is liberal yes, but not leftist.
Absolutely astounding.
If your definition of a leftist is being a hard line socialist like Sawant then literally any non-card carrying member of the Socialist Alternative could be considered a “moderate.” Enough with this moving of the goalposts.
Mosqueda is hyper-progressive. Aside from Sawant she’s the farthest from a moderate on the council.
Morales.
Civilizations fail when their leaders stop taking the needed actions to solve its problems.
I can see the value of staggering, but to keep both citywide seats on the same cycle is just dumb.
Split the cycles as evenly as possible, something like this gives a N/S split, an E/W Split, and a citywide on each cycle:
1, 3, 5, 6, 8
2, 4, 7, 9
This is really just an attempt to favor constituencies perceived to have more limited resources and enable them to throw those resources fully behind their candidates on a more favorable schedule. It is more difficult for unions, for example, to fund seven candidates in a general election for Council. It stretches their financial resources and personnel. Moving to the system suggested by Mosqueda would allow those unions to direct maximum resources to the more limited candidates, with the hope their efforts would yield a more union friendly Council. Groups perceived to have more resources, lets just assume where talking about corporate and business interests in this case, would lose their perceived ‘advantage’ with the changes.
This, along with eliminating some money in elections (corporate) while allowing others (unions) to be given unimpeded, as Gonzales managed to do four years ago, is how these politicians influence election results to their benefit.
Move back to 9 at-large elections.
Run re-elections every 2 years just like the House.