Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[Alcon]

Prop. 1 didn't do too badly in the second drop tonight, but Richard Conlin did...he may be toast.  Sawant needs about 52% of the remaining vote.  Amazing.

Also, it looks like Seattle's Prop. 1 (public financing) has a shot: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/11/08/sawant-surges-in-latest-ballot-drop-seatac-prop-1-bleeding-slows

Have we ever seen late ballots this different?

Why are both Murray and Conlin dropping?   On election night Murray had 56% and has dropped down to 53%.  What is the correlating factor.

Like Seattle says, late King County ballots tend to be progressive.  The Comcast issue probably didn't help Murray, either.  The difference is sharper than in previous years, though.  It's also a little odd that it's not applying to the SeaTac ballot measure -- although who knows if the countywide trend necessarily applies to each part of the county?

[Meeker]

McGinn and Sawant have very similar electoral coalitions - the young, people of color, far lefties, readers of The Stranger, etc. As one goes up the other definitely should as well. They both gained in late counting in the primary.

For that reason, I'm doubtful the Comcast issue was a factor.

[bgwah]

Prop. 1 didn't do too badly in the second drop tonight, but Richard Conlin did...he may be toast.  Sawant needs about 52% of the remaining vote.  Amazing.

Also, it looks like Seattle's Prop. 1 (public financing) has a shot: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/11/08/sawant-surges-in-latest-ballot-drop-seatac-prop-1-bleeding-slows

Have we ever seen late ballots this different?

Why are both Murray and Conlin dropping?   On election night Murray had 56% and has dropped down to 53%.  What is the correlating factor.

Like Seattle says, late King County ballots tend to be progressive.  The Comcast issue probably didn't help Murray, either.  The difference is sharper than in previous years, though.  It's also a little odd that it's not applying to the SeaTac ballot measure -- although who knows if the countywide trend necessarily applies to each part of the county?

Hmm, that's a good question. I wonder what comparing a previous election night abstract to a previous final result might reveal in terms of voting patterns for legislative districts.

[Meeker]

State Rep. Tami Green is going to run against appointed incumbent State Sen. Steve O'Ban in the 28th LD. Great news.

[bgwah]

State Rep. Tami Green is going to run against appointed incumbent State Sen. Steve O'Ban in the 28th LD. Great news.

Indeed! I would think this and the 48th are the best opportunities for taking back the State Senate, no?

[Meeker]

State Rep. Tami Green is going to run against appointed incumbent State Sen. Steve O'Ban in the 28th LD. Great news.

Indeed! I would think this and the 48th are the best opportunities for taking back the State Senate, no?

Yes, the 28th and the 48th are definitely the top targets. After that comes the 45th, and then after that the 6th, 26th, 42nd and 47th, depending on candidate recruitment. Not sure if there are plans to make a play at the 31st (Roach) or the 35th (Sheldon).

[Meeker]

I've been looking through old State House results and noticed we used to use a system like the one currently used in New Jersey. Both State House members were elected in the same race and each voter got two votes. It seems 1964 was the last year this system was used. After we ditched it, we started "nesting" the State House districts within the State Senate districts (each State House district was half a State Senate district; 32-A and 32-B, for example). I'm not sure when this practice stopped.

Anybody know of an article or book that talks about why these changes were made? I tried Google but gave up pretty quick.

[bgwah]

The Reynolds v. Sims ruling and other one man, one vote rulings were passed in the 1960s. Prior to that most states (Washington included) had districts with unequal populations. I'm not sure if we actually used the system you describe or if that's just poor data representation, but we adopted our current system then (adding the bipartisan redistricting commission aspect a bit later).

As for the half House districts, I don't know why this was done away with. We used a hybrid system for a while, where some House districts were split and others are like they are now. The 19th LD was split through 1990 despite the vast majority of LDs just giving their voters two representatives, for example.

This is a good history of redistricting in WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/oralhistory/redistricting2/intro.aspx

[publicunofficial]

State Sen. Nick Harper (D) has resigned, to spend more time with his family. His Everett-based seat is pretty Safe D territory.

[jimrtex]

I've been looking through old State House results and noticed we used to use a system like the one currently used in New Jersey. Both State House members were elected in the same race and each voter got two votes. It seems 1964 was the last year this system was used. After we ditched it, we started "nesting" the State House districts within the State Senate districts (each State House district was half a State Senate district; 32-A and 32-B, for example). I'm not sure when this practice stopped.

Anybody know of an article or book that talks about why these changes were made? I tried Google but gave up pretty quick.

The Consitution literally says that representative districts may not be divided between senate districts, that there not be more than 99 representatives, and that the number of senators be between 1/3 and 1/2 the number of representatives.

After statehood, the legislature created districts that were largely based on counties.   Senatorial districts were either a county; two or three counties; or several districts within one county: King (6), Spokane(3+), Whitman (2), Whatcom(2), and Walla Walla (1+).  Spokane and Walla Walla were exceptional in that part of Spokane was paired with Stevens (this was before Pend Oreille and Ferry were created), and part of Walla Walla was paired with Franklin and Adams.  

Representative districts were either a whole county, or coincident with a senate district, and elected either 1, 2, or 3 representatives.   In the larger counties, the senate and representative districts were coincident, and usually 2 representatives were elected.   For example, King had 6 senate districts, 6 representative districts, with 5 electing 2 representatives, and 1 electing 3.  So it was immediately established in some parts of the state to have a senator and usually 2, but sometimes 3 representatives elected from the same territory (the numbering of the two sets of district numbers were independent, so while a senate district might be 27, the identical territory could be representative district 35.

Garfield, Asotin, and Columbia were a senate district, while Garfield, Asotin, and Columbia were each a representative district electing one representative.   Clarke (now Clark) and Skamania were a senate district, Clarke was a representative district electing two representatives, and Skamania elected one representative.  So in the more rural parts of the state, there was one senate district and several representative districts.   I wouldn't really call them subdistricts since the representative districts were for individual counties within a multi-county senate district, and likely had great differences in population.

When new counties were added (Chelan, Ferry, Benton, Grant, and Pend Orielle were created after statehood) they were assigned to a senate district and given a one-representative house district.

There was a new apportionment after the 1900 census, but the same format was mostly followed.  King (8), Pierce (5), Spokane (5), Whitman (2), Snohomish (2), Whatcom (2) and Walla Walla (1+) had multiple senate districts.

There were just minor tweaks until 1930, when reapportionment was accomplished via the initiative.   This initiative eliminated the difference between senate and representative districts by eliminating the single-county representative districts.   It created 4 new senate districts in King, and one in Yakima, and somewhat rearranged multi-county senate districts elsewhere.  By eliminating the one representative per county arrangement, and increasing the number of representatives to the constitutional maximum of 99, they found enough representatives to transfer to King, without radically changing things elsewhere.  After this redistricting there were 46 districts, with 39 electing two representatives at large, and 7 electing three representatives at large.

In 1956 another initiative was passed, but in 1957 the legislature overturned it (initiated legislation can be amended by a 2/3 super-majority in both houses.   The initiated version created 3 more senate districts, two in King and one in Clark, bringing the total to 49, the maximum permissible under the constitution.  49 districts elected 2 representatives, and one elected three representatives.  The districts were largely based on counties, but there was somewhat more splitting of counties, including counties like Benton, Yakima, Skagit, Snohomish having portions attached to other counties.

The version passed by the legislature kept the three new senate districts in King and Clark counties, but elsewhere for the most part restored the pre-1957 senate districts.  They then gave three representatives to 6 districts and 1 representative to 5 districts.  The other 38 districts had 2 representatives.  

To be continued.

[jimrtex]

continuing...

There was then an attempt to create a different redistricting system (which was defeated), and litigation (Thigpen v Meyers), and a 1962 attempt to apportion by the initiative, which was narrowly defeated (it won big in King, and some other large counties, but was thumped elsewhere.  Garfield voted 42 Yes to 1187 No.   The federal district court had deferred action until after the initiative failed, but then ruled that the legislative districts were unconstitutional.  The 1963 legislature did not act, and the district court enjoined holding elections on the existing lines.  This was stayed by the SCOTUS, pending its decision in Reynolds v Sims.  Seven days after Reynolds v Sims was announced, the SCOTUS rejected the appeal in Thigpen v Meyers.   The 1964 elections went ahead on the existing lines, but the district court enjoined the 1965 legislature from enacting any legislation, including a budget until they had redistricted.

Dan Evans was newly elected governor, while there was a Democratic legislature.  It took the legislature 47 days to pass a redistricting bill.  Slade Gorton who was in the legislature at the time is credited by some with getting a bill pass that was more favorable to Republicans, while the Democrats were more concerned with protecting individual incumbents by keeping them in separate districts, even it was not necessarily favorable to their election.

The 1965 legislation created 49 senate districts and 56 representative districts.  There were 14 single-member representative districts (2A-2B, 5A-5B, 8A-8B, 9A-9B, 11A-11B, 16A-16B, and 32A-32B).  These are described in the law as representative districts, and then the encompassing senate district, such as 2, is described as being constituted from representative districts 2A and 2B.

For example, 2A was Okanogan, while 2B was Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille.   Senate district 2 was constituted from 2A and 2B.

In some cases these single member districts appear intended to ensure representation in an area.  For example, before 1965, District 10 was Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, and had one senator and one representative; and District 11 was Walla Walla and had one senator and two representatives.  After 1965, 11 A was Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, and part of Walla Walla, while 11B was most of Walla Walla (including the city of Walla Walla).   This avoided the risk of all 3 legislators coming from Walla Walla, which had a majority of the population.

Other splits included 8A part of Yakima, and 8B part of Benton; and 9A Whitman, and 9B Lincoln and Adams; and 16A part of Benton and 16B Franklin.

Districts 5 in Spokane and 32 in Seattle were also split.   5A and 5B appear gerrymandered with interleaved fingers, so I suspect it was intended to keep incumbents apart.  Or perhaps 3 representatives ended up in a senate district, and they wanted to force the two from an existing district to face off.

District 32 is really an anomaly, since the other 14 districts in King County were simple 1 senator, 2 representative districts.   If you looked carefully at the boundaries, and the incumbents, etc., it probably makes very good sense, but it certainly is an oddity, while the 5 splits in rural territory are obviously trying to maintain representation for distinct areas.

The 7 split districts were in a sense a throwback to the pre-1930 practice of having at least one representative district for every county, but now they were for distinct areas, and the numbering was coordinated.

The other 42 senate districts continued the practice of at-large elections for representatives.  41 elected 2 representatives and one in Whatcom, elected 3 representatives.   Previously, Whatcom had 2 senate districts electing 2 and 1 representatives (3 total).

In 1965, legislation was also passed providing for at large representatives to be elected by position.  This was separate from the redistricting, and I don't know why it was done.  The current statutes for election-by-position is general, and applies not only to the House of Representatives, but cities and school districts, etc (chartered cities and counties may be able to disregard this).   I found the 1965 law based on references in the current statutes.

It may have been that they wanted to provide more structure to the elections, where many representatives would be forced to run against each other.   Or it might have been simply following the practice for other at-large elections.  If OMOV was being applied to commissioner elections, it might be easier to switch to at-large elections where incumbents wouldn't have to be matched up since they could run for separate positions rather than to change the district lines.

Before 1965, districts 1 through 17 were east of the Cascades, with 17 including part of Clark, plus Skamania, and Klickitat.

Districts 1 and 10 were moved to King and Kitsap as a result of the 1965 redistricting; 2 and 11 to King and Pierce as the result of the 1970s redistricting; and 5 to King as a result of the the 1990s redistricting.   17 has been captured by Clark.  Otherwise, Washington has had a fairly continuous history of district numbering for over a century (with the King County districts in the 40s having been added later, along with 49 in Clark County).

The SOS elections data base shows the single member representative districts as being position elections (eg 2A is shown as 2 position 1, and 2B is 2 position 2), but if you look at the county returns they are correct.   32A and 32B had significant differences in number of votes cast.

The 1970s redistricting was done by a federal court (actually a special master) after the legislature failed to redistrict.   There were 49 senate districts, and all had two representatives.  Under modern OMOV requirements, having three representatives for some districts is impossible.   In the 1960s it might have been believed you could give an area entitled to 1.3 senators and 2.6 representatives: 1 senator and 3 representatives, where they somewhat compensated each other.

The 1980s redistricting was done by the legislature and they created four single member representative districts: 19A was Cowlitz and part of Wahkiakum; while 19B was Pacific, part of Grey Harbor, and part of Wahkiakum; while 39A and 39B were parts of Snohomish County.

The 19 split recognizes the difference between the coast and the lower Columbia, particularly Longview; but the OMOV interpretation was strict enough to require the division to occur in Wahkiakum which doesn't have much population.  One reason for not creating single-member representative districts is that it would probably require more splits of small counties.

The redistricting commission was provided for in 1983, and has done redistricting for the last 3 decades (1990s, 2000s, 2010s).  I don't know if the commission made an active decision to not have single member representative districts or not.  But there haven't been any created.

There have been bills introduced that would switch to having single member representative districts.   They have at best received committee hearings that can be characterized as cold (ie, if we don't ask any questions, we can go on to the next bill in 5 minutes).  One year, one representative asked about how the districts could be divided, noting that the other representative from her district lived across the alley and could look down into her backyard from his second story (whether he has binoculars, and she has a swimming pool, I do not know, but that is how I visualize it).

Sources:

Washington Redistricting History

Legislative History links

'History of the Legislature 1965-1982' has lots of interesting stuff, with the section on the 1865 including details of the process.

'Members of the Washington State Legislature' has the legislators each year by district, along with where the district was (I don't think this is always 100% accurate).  It also has an interesting section on redistricting history.   This includes the laws that actually implemented redistricting, which can be found here:

Index to Session Laws

The session laws include all the bills that became law each session of the legislature. 

Links to past voter Guides, not the most obvious format

I know that 1964, 1966, and 1972 have district maps, including details for the cities.

[Asian Nazi]

We just pulled ahead by 41 votes!

https://electionsdata.kingcounty.gov/election-results-nov/three/City%2C%20L-Z/Seattle/City%20of%20Seattle%20Council%20Position%20No.%202

Can someone run the math as to how many votes are left to be counted?

[Meeker]

Really stunning. I think there are about 17,000 votes left for that race, but there's also a couple of hundred or as many as a thousand that may be eligible depending on signature issues.

SeaTac Prop 1 has held on to its lead. Currently up by 43 votes. I think somewhere around 500 votes are left to be counted there.

[jimrtex]

We just pulled ahead by 41 votes!

https://electionsdata.kingcounty.gov/election-results-nov/three/City%2C%20L-Z/Seattle/City%20of%20Seattle%20Council%20Position%20No.%202

Can someone run the math as to how many votes are left to be counted?

Just short of 160K votes cast in the council race of 186K Seattle ballots counted.  There are around 213K ballots that can be counted, with another 4K possible.  The number of unverified ballots dropped from around 7K to 4K with the last update on Tuesday.  The number of unverified had remained pretty constant until this last update.  I don't know whether that means they've started going back for a second look, or that they have made their final decision.

Sawant had 47% in the first 2/3 of ballots counted, and 55.6% in the remaining 1/3 (and this keeps climbing).

Sawant should put up another 2000 votes or so.

The council race has 14.6% undervote.  The mayors race around 4.0%, and the GMO initiative around 1.5% (countywide).   Were the state initiatives top of the ballot.  The mayoral undervote sounds kind of high, like it was buried.   Were the King County races above the city races also?

[Seattle]

Yeah, all the state stuff came first. I think the mayor's race was actually on the back of the ballot, though I could be wrong.

[RI]

Sawant is winning? I'm not sure if I should be terrified or amused.

[Meeker]

I don't understand why King County can't release daily precinct results like everyone else. Grrrrr.

[Meeker]

Also, it looks like statewide turnout is going to end up at about 45%, which I believe is the lowest since we entered the vote-by-mail era circa 2004.

[Alcon]

I have to admit that, although I voted Conlin and I'm deeply concerned that we're losing an advocate for good, dense urban development, part of me is rooting for Sawant at this point just because this is awesome political theater.

I've heard a lot of grumbling lately about how reduced turnout might be because vote-by-mail eliminates the excitement of Election Day, and removes a last-minute reminder for voters to stop procrastinating and submit their ballot.  I tend to think the convenience increases turnout more than the quietude decreases it, though.

King County is perplexingly awful on a lot of elections issues (drop-box availability, precinct results, integration with state databases) for no apparent reason.  I'm pretty sure they have the resources to do a decent job on accessibility.  They just seem to not care much.

[Meeker]

I don't think there's really any data to support the idea vote-by-mail decreases turnout. I mean, hasn't turnout in '06, '08, '10 and '12 been some of the highest in state history? And compare turnout in our local elections to turnout in local elections in other states.

I guess next year will be a good test since there are no statewide elections. 2002 was the last time this happened, and I believe turnout that year was 38%. Hard to see how it'll drop below the 45% we're getting this year. I seem to have completely fabricated the 38% number.

Here's historical data: http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter_participation.aspx

[Meeker]

Huh, this is another really cool data set: http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/absentee_stats.aspx?y=2000

As early as 2000, 54% of ballots were being cast by mail. In 2004, it was 68%. By 2008 (the last year before King switched) it was 89%.

ETA: Something is weird with the Pierce numbers for 2011 and 2012.

[jimrtex]

Huh, this is another really cool data set: http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/absentee_stats.aspx?y=2000

ETA: Something is weird with the Pierce numbers for 2011 and 2012.

The number of "absentee ballots" cast in 2011 and 2012 is identical to that for 2010 - the last year when there was a meaningful difference in Pierce County.  Making the SOS sends out a spreadsheet populated with old numbers, and Pierce County is not updating.  Maybe the Auditor goes, "Huh?, why do I put the same number in both columns.", and someone over at the SOS office says, "Pierce County is always different because they still have in person voting".

[Alcon]

The Yes on 522 campaign continues to post "it's too close to call" stuff, even though they're 53,113 votes behind with about 55,238 ballots left to count.  Bizarre.

[jimrtex]

King County is perplexingly awful on a lot of elections issues (drop-box availability, precinct results, integration with state databases) for no apparent reason.  I'm pretty sure they have the resources to do a decent job on accessibility.  They just seem to not care much.

They were forced to automate for practical reasons before other counties, and also can afford to have regular election staff.   Because they have such a large share of the population, there is probably conceit as well.

In Garfield County, the auditor probably personally counts the ballots, and anything the SOS does saves money for the county.

All states are required by federal law to have a statewide registration database.  In Texas, the smaller counties log in directly to the state database.  The larger counties which had already automated, do a batch download once per day.

The thing that is bothersome about King County is that they take their time counting the votes.  They had verified signatures on most ballots within a day of the election.  But they just run some through the scanners each day.   King County has 45,000 ballots left to count, about 80% of the statewide total.  Pierce County has 462, and Snohomish around 4,000.

They would probably claim that it either permits them to use their regular staff, or to do temporary hires for a couple of weeks instead of two days.  But it gives the outside appearance of manipulating the results (remember the Gregoire-Rossi race).

[Meeker]

I-522 folks say they'll go the put-this-thing-on-the-ballot-until-it-passes route. They're planning a 2016 vote: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/11/14/2829299/backers-of-i-522s-gmo-labeling.html

Hey, it worked for Costco/liquor privatization...