Letter to the Editor: Misconceptions About Charter Propositions

I’d like to address some of the significant misconceptions about the Charter Review Commission and Propositions 1, 2 and 3.

The most troubling misconception is the assertion that Proposition 1 is unconstitutional and does not meet the requirement of equal voting (one-person, one-vote. The proposed system of whole county voting ensures that every person’s vote is equal. In our current system each voter has one vote for the Council Member representing their district; if Proposition 1 passes each voter will have one vote for each of three Council Members representing the entire county.

The misconception is to confuse representative districts, which we have now, with the residency districts proposed by Proposition 1. Council Members in each residency district represent the whole county, not simply the district where they live. The Prosecuting Attorney, Washington State Law and the Supreme Court of the United States all agree that such residency districts meet legal requirements for equal voting (the Prosecuting Attorney’s memo on the issue is available at the CRC site on the county’s website and includes the relevant case law and state law).

Another misconception is concern about maintaining a “separation of powers.” This misconception stems from modeling our Charter on the Whatcom County Charter. The County Executive in Whatcom is independently elected, and their Charter provides provisions to separate the executive and legislative branches. Our County does not have an independently elected Administrator and provisions in the Charter to separate County administration from the County Council have proved unrealistic and unworkable. Proposition 2 provides a reality based relationship between County administration and the County Council.

Some argue that the Propositions would “give Lopez too much power.” Amusingly some of the same people also argue that Proposition 1 would marginalize Lopez. This is the same one-person, one-vote misconception. Proposition 1 assures geographic diversity and insisting that one of the three Council Members live on Lopez, Shaw, Decatur or Center Island does not change the fact that everyone voting
in the county has equal weight in electing that Council Member. Nor does it allow that Council Member to ignore the needs of their constituents on the other islands; instead he or she would need to be especially attentive to the interests of the residents of the other two districts, with their larger number of voters.

Finally there is a misconception that the CRC used an undemocratic process to arrive at the Propositions. The CRC adopted Roberts Rules of Order, unanimously, at their first meeting and our able chair enforced them throughout the process. We devoted significant time at each and every meeting to discussing proposed changes, listening to members of the community and to the concerns of members of the CRC (including dissenting members.Each Proposition was subject to an additional set of rules requiring votes at 3 separate meetings.

Proposals made early in the process had the most opportunity for discussion. That the majority of members continued to support these Propositions is evidence that most of the CRC members agree that they represent the best possible improvements to San Juan County’s Home Rule Charter.

Vote for greater power over your government. Vote for Propositions 1, 2, and 3.

Madrona Murphy, Charter Review Commissioner, District 6, Lopez