City Council Special Meeting 7/14/22

Thank you.

Welcome and good afternoon.

Today is Thursday, July 14th.

This is a special meeting of the Seattle City Council.

Will the Seattle City Council please come to order?

It is 2.03.

and Debra Juarez, Council Member Juarez, and Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Sawant?

Present.

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

Councilmember Silva?

for agenda items one through four, the council will hear comments from members of the public who wish to speak in support of and opposed to agenda items one through four, and an appropriate equal opportunity to speak will be given to those of the public speaking on those items.

My understanding from Madam Clerk is that we have 23 people signed up remotely and two people in chambers, which is a total of 25 folks.

So today, each speaker will have one minute.

and the public comment period will last no later than 3.15.

This will allow the council to also conduct the business on the agenda and adjourn before the Seattle Park District Public Hearing meeting that is scheduled to start following at 5.30.

Madam Clerk, I will now hand this over to you to present the public comment instructions.

One second, please.

OK.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers.

on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, Please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The Council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused, or if the process impedes the Council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the City.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Thank you Seattle.

I'll be called in the order registered taking into consideration today speakers that have signed up in support or opposed to today's agenda items.

The first speaker, the first remote speaker will be Cody Zaleski.

Cody.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

My name is Cody Zaleski from District 4. I strongly urge the council to implement the Ranked Choice Voting Alternative Bill for Municipal Primaries.

Ranked Choice Voting is used in dozens of cities across the country, the states of Maine and Alaska, and the countries of Ireland and Australia.

Meanwhile approval voting may violate one person one vote and mirror results similar to first past the post.

Ranked choice voting is meaningful reform when many voters are cynical toward a democracy filled with establishment partisanship.

I would also repudiate the statement made earlier today by Council Member Nelson claiming to quote let the voters decide while ignoring ranked choice voting.

Putting ranked choice voting on the ballot is letting the voters decide.

Unfortunately ranked choice voting advocates in Seattle don't share the same deep pocketed donors from California to put such an initiative on the November ballot.

please put ranked choice voting on the ballot this fall.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Heather Kelly.

Heather, press star six.

Can you hear me?

Yep, we can hear you.

Hey, hi.

My name is Heather Kelly.

I'm a constituent in District 6 and I'm also the president of the League of Women Voters of Seattle King County.

Thanks so much for giving us an opportunity to speak today.

I'm here to support the placement of a ranked choice voting on the ballot this fall.

It makes complete sense to us for the voters to decide how they should be voting in the future.

And we know that alternative election methods in Seattle have had a long history of support and lots of ongoing momentum, and it makes sense to put all the options in front of the voters in one fell swoop.

The League has committed to, if the council approves the ballot measure, to support a public education campaign so voters really feel confident in understanding these alternative election methods when they go complete their ballot.

Once again, please, please offer this choice to the voters.

Thanks so much.

Our next speaker is Dan Eisenberg.

Hello, I'm Dan Eisenberg.

I'm a voter living in Ballard.

And I'm also here today to urge the council to give, give voters a chance to weigh in on the rank choice voting options.

So I think rank choice voting allows voters to more fully express their opinions.

A dilemma I and a lot of other voters often find ourselves in is not voting for our hopes, not voting for our preferred candidates, but instead against our fears, voting against the worst candidates by strategically voting for the candidates we think has the best chance of winning against our perceived worst candidates.

Ranked choice voting allows us to vote optimistically for our hopes and our preferred candidates without worrying that by doing so we are not voting strategically.

Please allow voter wills to be better expressed and a more optimistic and less polarizing politics to develop here in Seattle.

Seattle has the opportunity and should become a model for the country.

And I really hope that the city council will give voters a chance to weigh in on that.

Our next speaker is in the council chambers is Scott Berkeley, Scott.

And I support rank choice voting.

Thank you to council member Lewis for giving us this opportunity for a better option in November.

Our primary elections have one main goal, to offer the general election voters the most meaningful choice from the available candidates.

To do that, two things must be true.

First, the two candidates who advance must each have broad enough support to have a shot at earning a majority of votes.

Second, the two candidates must offer distinct enough visions that voters have a meaningful choice for the direction of our city.

Ranked choice voting is perfectly designed to achieve these goals.

Approval voting is not, and runs the risk that a plurality could advance two nearly identical candidates who lack true majority support.

Please give voters the chance to choose the superior voting method.

In November, please support ranked choice voting.

Our next remote speaker is Michael Calkins.

Michael?

Michael, if you haven't, please press star six.

Is he on the line, Madam Clerk?

I don't see a...

Okay, I have them listed as present on our call-in list.

Actually, we'll take the next speaker that's in Council Chambers.

Okay.

Pamela Nee.

Hello?

Yes, go ahead.

Hello?

Okay, Pamela, we're taking first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

Thank you for seeking out for alternative systems to our voting system.

I have three points to make, but with one minute, I can make two.

My parents had sent me to stay in a democratic country in fear of communism.

But after decades of living their legacy, I started looking at U.S. democracy and ways to improve it.

Rank choice voting is the improvement that would be appreciated by a lot of immigrants.

It will allow us to show our preferences of candidates in any political race.

And in alignment with the social climate of nowadays of diversity, equitability and inclusion or inclusivity, DEI, RCB movement has launched grassroots campaigns from the start, which involve a lot of people.

RCV actually has broad support from community-based organizations in Seattle called Washington for Equitable Representation Coalition.

It really gives regular people equal weight on their voting.

So- Thank you.

I have to remind everybody, it is one minute and you will hear a timer when you have 10 seconds.

Madam Clerk, you call the next name.

Does it appear that Michael Calkins is unmuted now?

Mr. Calkins.

Okay, we're gonna move on to Grant Slayton.

Grant.

Go ahead, Grant.

Hello, I'm Grant Slayton from District One.

I'm speaking in support of Initiative 134. An election like the 2000 presidential election where Ralph Nader split votes from Al Gore is the ideal use case for ranked choice voting, but unfortunately not all elections are so straightforward.

Like here in Seattle, it's really common for electoral fields to have a large number of candidates with significant ideological overlap.

And in this kind of election, a ranked choice system will actually tend to eliminate broadly popular candidates in the middle of the ideological spectrum who have the most overlap with other candidates because they'll still split each other's votes in the early And the gold standard for any voting system is to ask if the candidate that won would have beaten every other candidate in a head-to-head election.

Now empirically ranked choice does significantly better than our current system.

I don't think anyone's denying that.

You examine the research by expert political scientists, you'll find that approval to runoff system as initiative 134 proposes does an even better job.

So replacing approval to runoff with

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Poor.

Sarah?

Madam Clerk, before you begin, Sarah, let me again remind people you have one minute and when you hear the bell, you have 10 seconds.

We don't like to cut people off, but we're really asking that you follow the one minute rule.

And when you hear the chime, there's 10 seconds.

Madam Clerk, go ahead and call the name.

Sarah Poor.

Sarah, press star six.

Okay, we will move on to Kelsey Hamlin.

Kelsey?

Oh, I believe I just pressed it.

Can you hear me?

Yep, we can.

Okay, great.

Hi, I'm Kelsey Hamlin.

I'm calling from District 3 speaking in favor of putting ranked choice voting to the voters because in my years as both a local journalist, and also working at Sightline Institute, which happens to study voting systems, and also in my current work in Washington State politics, I know firsthand from years of looking at research that ranked choice voting is simply the best way to both improve and protect our democracy.

It's been used for years in over 50 jurisdictions across the US, and it's still the test of time.

Right now, voters have to worry about splitting the vote and causing their preferred party to lose.

The same would unfortunately happen if voters got to choose several candidates but not mark which is their most to least preferred among those choices.

Ranked choice voting fixes that, allowing voters to have votes for how they actually want to vote for instead of calculating.

Please allow voters a choice on their own voting system when it comes time in November.

Thank you for your work and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

One minute.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Zachary Collins.

Zachary?

Hi my name is Zachary Collins.

I'm a voter from District 3. I don't think the council should interfere with the ballot initiative process.

I've been excited about voting for reform for as long as I can remember and it's really incredible that we're finally seeing this coming up in the conversation in Seattle.

But this isn't the right way to approach it.

I'd love to see Seattle enact any sort of voting reform but we don't have anything to gain from doing it this way.

If the council puts ranked choice voting on the ballot, it's going to politicize voting reform here.

And it would be really disastrous voting reform to see that sort of politicization.

It would discredit voting reform altogether.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is another Zachary.

Zachary McCauley.

And Zachary McCauley, please press star six if you have not yet.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, this is Zachary McCauley.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm in District 5. I want Seattle voters to have a chance to choose ranked choice voting this year because it is ideal for reducing political polarization and division.

And this is really important to me. because these divisions have split some of my family apart, and ranked choice voting can help us focus on fixing problems instead of getting trapped in these battles of us versus them.

So again, I support adding the alternative option by the council for the November ballot, and I hope you'll vote yes on the 19th.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Reeves.

David?

David?

David, are you there?

Okay.

Clerk, let's go to the next caller and we'll go back.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Eric Nielsen, and we might need to give him a few minutes for the IT people to follow who I'm calling next since we're going in a different kind of order, but Eric Nielsen is up next.

Hi, my name is Eric Nielsen of District 3. I'm here to speak against the proposed council bill and in favor of just including the amendment as it was counted signatures for.

Because as Council Member Nelson accurately put in her earlier public statement, it is completely unprecedented to use backroom deals to push through a more politically feasible or favorable electoral system on top of the backs of grassroots initiative campaigns.

This would be completely irresponsible and democratically dangerous for the council to meddle in these election matters.

What she also didn't mention is that the two options, ranked choice voting and approval voting, are not one-to-one.

Ranked choice voting was designed as a system by election scientists and used around the world, but it is impossible to properly implement with our statewide top two primary laws.

Instead, statewide electoral reform is in motion and is needed to actually get ranked choice voting approved appropriately across the state, not just in Seattle.

Rushing this through here will not actually help us and could cause important unintended consequences.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Walford.

Chris.

Hello, council members.

Thank you for hearing me.

My name is Chris Walford.

I live in North Seattle and I support using ranked choice voting in our elections.

I like the ranked choice voting because unlike our current system, it allows voters to fully express their preferences.

This increases voter engagement and encourages candidates to reach out beyond their core base of support.

In the many states and cities that use it voters are overwhelmingly like it and want to keep it.

By adopting Ranked Choice Voting Seattle can join the Ranked Choice Voting movement that is leading the country toward a better future.

I ask you let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Reeves.

David.

Hi, all.

Thank you for taking my opinion.

I'm interested in supporting Initiative 134 so that we reduce political polarization.

I think there's broad support for election reform, which is exciting.

I think it's urgent that we pass something and maximize the possibility that any election reform heading in the right direction passes this time.

I like approval voting because it is simple, it increases voter engagement, and moves us forward to reducing political polarization.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jacob Yent.

Jacob?

Hi, Kamri?

Yes.

Hi my name is Jacob.

I live in Cap Hill and I support Ranked Choice Voting.

I think it's really important for our democracy.

It will make politics less divisive.

So please put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot in November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Logan Bowers.

Logan.

Go ahead, Logan.

Logan, you push star six.

I see you there.

You're muted now.

There you go.

Correct?

Oh, can you hear me now?

Yep, we sure can.

My apologies.

Thank you so much.

I am asking you today to not interfere with the initiative process or manipulate your own election rule.

As Open Primaries, a national nonprofit voting rights and reform advocacy group, pointed out in their letter to you this morning, manipulating the ballot process in this form is not the right way to place an alternative on the ballot.

The alternative proposal is unlike any ranked system ever proposed or used in the United States due to our unique top two primary system, and has never been scrutinized by experts in the field.

Many of the claims you have heard today don't apply to it, and it is likely to have unintended consequences.

Also notably, your alternative plan does not take effect until 2027, while the citizen-sponsored initiative would take effect as early as 2023. There's no reason to rush a reform that many years in advance.

that would affect your own elections when you can simply place it on the ballot at a later time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Diane Douglas.

Diane?

Diane?

Hi, can you hear me now?

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your work council members.

My name's Diane Douglas and I live in District 7. I'm also the former director of Seattle City Club and a founder of the Washington State Debate Coalition and I'm very excited about the prospect of bringing ranked choice voting to Seattle because of the compelling evidence that it yields greater diversity in elected representation and can make campaigning and electioneering less negative less polarized which are incredibly urgent for all of us.

So I urge you to put it on the ballot.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Montgomery.

John?

Madam Clerk, did we have John earlier and we didn't dial him in?

I don't know.

OK.

It's possible.

Oh, John, are you there?

Okay.

I do not show that I called John Montgomery, but we can move on.

Okay.

Next speaker, which is Diane Panagiotopoulos.

Diane?

Hello?

Yes.

Cool.

Hi, I'm Diane Panagiotopoulos from District 7, and I'm here to speak in favor of putting rate choice voting on the ballot.

Something needs to change about how we do elections because at all levels of government, our elected officials fail to truly represent us.

One of the many reasons for that is that our current voting system biases towards officials with the policies that are the least disliked.

We deserve a system that ends up with officials whose policies are the most favored by the most people.

Ranked choice voting enables that and so we should be given the option to choose the best voting system for a truly representative government.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathy Sakahara.

Kathy Sakahara.

Kathleen.

On my screen, I cannot see if she's unmuted.

Does it look like she's unmuted?

I don't see it on my screen, so.

Pardon me.

Kathleen?

Okay, we will move on for now to Troy Davis.

Is Troy Davis available?

Hi, I'm Troy Davis in D3.

I'm going to read part of a letter that a national nonpartisan voting reform group called Open Primaries sent to the council today.

It was posted on Twitter.

Open primaries wrote voters in Seattle gathered signatures to put approval voting on the ballot.

Let them vote on that.

It will win or it will lose.

Don't manipulate the process.

They continued.

Open primaries supports ranked choice voting and approval voting.

This is not about a preference.

It is about the process.

If you send two measures to the ballot in response to a to citizens petitioning for one You will be doing a grave disservice to the Ranked Choice Voting movement.

If people see Ranked Choice Voting as a tool used by politicians to derail other voting reforms not as a genuine reform in and of itself that will impact negatively.

That kind of political manipulation is beneath a highly regarded and progressive city council.

Please send I-134 to the voters as is.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kamau Chege, I believe.

Kamau, C-H-E-G-E.

That's remotely?

That's on the phone?

Yes.

Hi, yes.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can, sir.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

My name is Kamau Chege.

I'm the executive director of Washington Community Alliance, a network of organizations of color focused on multiracial democracy.

here to support adding ranked choice voting to the November ballot, which is a top priority for many community organizations.

We just heard two executives today complain that this ordinance is being rushed, that it's undemocratic, that it's untested, it could yield outcomes we don't know about.

But what we do know is that they raised half a million dollars from out-of-state tech executives and a crypto billionaire to buy their way to the ballot by getting by hiring paid signature gatherers.

What Seattle voters need to know is that approval voting has never been tested.

It's never withstood scrutiny in court.

We would be the only jurisdiction with a state voting rights act to implement it.

And that's why voters need an option for ranked choice voting to be proven and tested and widely used.

Thank you.

My next speaker is Andrew Hong.

Andrew.

What number is Andrew?

What number are we on?

We only have two left.

OK.

Andrew, are you there?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yep.

Great.

Awesome.

My name is Andrew Hong.

I'm a resident District 2 and an Asian-American organizer here in South Seattle.

And I'm testifying to put ranked choice voting on the ballot to give voters a choice and time for a comprehensive debate about how we elect our city government in Seattle.

Ring choice voting is tried and tested and popular amongst those who use it.

It's used in New York City and Minneapolis and also down south in Portland, just south in Portland.

Polls show that it has 70% support amongst voters as Portland decides to put ring choice voting on the ballot in November as well.

And so for that, I believe ring choice voting is the best way for our city to elect our council members, and it gives voters more choice.

So I hope the council puts ranked choice voting on the ballot this November to give voters the choice of how we elect our council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Ward.

Sarah Ward.

Sarah?

Sarah, are you available?

Yes I'm here.

Sorry about that.

Yeah my name is Sarah Ward and I'm I've been a resident of Seattle since 2009. I'm a volunteer for the Initiative 134 campaign and I've supported voting reform for many years and I support that initiative and putting it on the ballot for November.

I urge the council to place it on the ballot without modification.

through the addition of Council Bill 120369. The Council's rush alternative is going to take four, five, or more years to implement, and I don't really see, I just don't understand the urgency here.

If this is done outside the initiative process, the Council should do this the right way, research the options, explain the trade-offs to voters, collect public comments and more input than they are today, and provide real choices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hannah Sabio Howell.

Hannah?

Hannah?

Hi, my name is Hannah Sabio Howell.

I live in Capitol Hill and I'm a resident of District 3. And I'm here in support of adding a ranked choice voting option to the ballot.

I'm excited for this well-tested and trusted and objectively effective voting system to make it easier for historically marginalized people to engage our system both as voters and as candidates.

I think this will make our move up toward a vision of a stronger democracy unlike the approval voting option but I would at least like the choice.

I urge all council members to support it by voting yes and adding it to our ballot.

Thank you.

Council President, that's the last speaker, but I would like to go once more back to Sarah Poore to see if she is, it looks like she may still be online.

Please do.

Yeah, please do.

Let's go back and pick up some people that didn't get online.

So go ahead.

There's three possible.

So our first speaker now would be Sarah Poore.

Hi, my name is Sarah.

Hello, can you hear me?

Go ahead.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Oh, good.

Oh perfect.

This is Sarah Poore.

I live in District 7 and I'm here to support using Ranked Choice Voting in the city elections.

With our current top two system a candidate is guaranteed a spot in the general election if they win only one third of the vote plus one.

This encourages candidates to focus on their narrow base of energized primary voters because it doing so ensures that they make it through the primary.

Ranked Choice Voting encourages candidates to broaden their appeal And unlike approval voting voters can support their second and third choices without fear that doing so will hurt the chances of their favorite.

Because Ranked Choice Voting has been widely used for many years there is data showing that more women and people of color run and win in Ranked Choice Voting elections.

Please let the voters decide what the voting system and thank you for coming back to me.

Okay, we have two left, and that is John Montgomery, which I don't show has spoken.

Is John Montgomery available?

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

My name is John Montgomery, and I'm calling to support ranked choice voting.

I've looked at the approval voting that Seattle approves.

pushing and it's a really simplistic version of approval voting.

There are better ones such as score voting, but the one that they're pushing is just too simplistic and it's not as good as what we could use.

So I would favor ranked choice voting.

Thanks.

Thank you, John.

Yeah.

All right.

Thanks.

Our next speaker is now President Wendy Williams.

Wendy.

Hi, my name is Wendy Williams.

I'm speaking for Ranked Choice Voting.

I live in District 3. Ranked Choice Voting is a good choice for Seattle, even if it's initially only used in the primary due to state law.

And this is what the approval voting people keep objecting to.

But if you compare the deep grassroots support for Ranked Choice Voting in Seattle and Washington with the shallow, extremely limited, support for approval voting with a few very rich people financing the initiative, you'll see that many in the city agree with me that ranked choice voting makes more sense.

Maybe because it has a track record for being used successfully in many municipalities and organizations, as well as now in Alaska, Maine, New York City, and Minneapolis.

I urge the council to vote to put ranked choice voting on the ballot so voters can decide in November.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Wendy.

Our last speaker signed up is Kathy Sakahara.

Is Kathy still on the phone?

Hello.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Go ahead, Kathy.

Oh, good.

It worked.

Hi.

Thank you very much.

My name is Kathy Sakahara.

I live in District 5 and I'm the Legislative Director for the Northwest Progressive Institute.

I'm here to urge you to put the option of ranked race voting on November's ballot.

There's a number of reasons that we support our CD but chief among them is the fact that it's well tested and popular with voters.

We've actually done research on death and thanks to our research.

We we have a had a poll of likely voters conducted for FBI by change research in July 2021. That showed total support for our CD at 66%.

And opposition at 23%.

That's a 3 to one margin.

Another benefit of RCB is it discourages negative campaigning.

Basically, it's not gonna solve political lack of civility, but it will move us in that direction, and that's a very good thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that was our last speaker.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay.

Council President Wise, we've just had one person walk into the chambers.

Would you like to take one more in-person public comment?

Absolutely.

Go ahead.

One minute.

Go ahead and start again so your mic can be turned on.

Mary Fox.

My name is Mary Fox.

I live in West Seattle.

I've been the victim of a year of ongoing burglaries and ongoing identity theft.

The identity theft has hit every institution, all my banks, all my financial assets.

I have contacted the police probably at least 30 to 40 times.

The police have not done anything to help me.

I just filed another report yesterday with all the documentation from the banks.

And the cops just come and they pretend like I'm nuts.

Someone has been entering my home and vandalizing my home now for a year.

And I'd really like some action on the police side of things to help me.

And I hope that the council will put some pressure on the police, please.

And I also need an attorney if they could get some help with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is our last speaker now.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And that is the end of public comment.

And as I shared, we've reached the list of speakers, both that have called in remotely and those that have showed up today in chambers.

So with that, moving along in our agenda, we'll move to presentations.

Today, we have Lish Whitson, our policy analyst from central staff, and he's going to provide an overview of Initiative 134 regarding approval voting and Council Bill 120369 regarding ranked voting.

Lish, thank you, first of all, for the memo you provided us, for the helpful sheet on how we're voting, how we're moving through the calendar, and, of course, the PowerPoint.

So I'm going to turn it over to you.

Oh, and we have Director Handy here as well.

So I'll hand it over to you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Lish Woodson, Council Central staff.

Let me share my presentation.

All right, as you know, initiative 134, which would change how primaries for Seattle elective office work, has received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot.

The certificate of sufficiency was filed on June 28th.

That started a 45-day clock for council action on the initiative.

By August 9th, the council must act on the initiative.

August 2nd is the deadline for sending measures to King County to be placed on this November's ballot.

I'm going to briefly describe the effective initiative 134 and an alternative that Council Member Lewis has proposed, and then walk through the actions in front of you this afternoon.

There are three different ways to conduct the top two primary for mayor, city attorney, and city council members that are on the table.

The current system, which I'll call choose one, initiative 134, which would switch the primary to an approval voting system, and Council Member Lewis's proposed alternative, Council Bill 120369, which would switch the primary to rank choice voting.

We are all very familiar with choose one voting.

Voters choose the candidate they want to win.

The top two move from the primary to the general election.

If neither initiative 134, Council Member Lewis's proposal move forward after the election, we would remain with the current system.

The ship 134 would implement approval.

Under approval voting voters like to say candidates as they approve of the 2 candidates that received the most votes would move to the general election.

This type of primary is currently used in Saint Louis Missouri in Fargo North Dakota.

This is part of the ballot used in Saint Louis in 2021. The first time they used approval voting in their primaries voters were instructed to vote for as many candidates as you approve.

They had four mayoral candidates that year.

Ultimately, one out of every two voters chose more than one candidate in the election.

Tishwaria Jones received support from 57% of the voters and went on to win the general election with 52% of the vote and was elected mayor.

Council Member Lewis has proposed Council Bill 120369, which would place a ranked choice voting on November's ballot as an alternative to Initiative 134. Under Council Bill 120369, voters would rank up to five candidates in their order of preference.

Counting would occur in rounds.

After each round, the candidate with the fewest top-ranked votes would be eliminated.

King County elections would then look at the ballots that had that eliminated candidate as their top choice and reallocate their votes to the next ranked choice.

Voting would continue in rounds of counting, eliminating, and reallocating until two candidates remain.

Those top two would proceed to the general election.

The process laid out in Council Bill 120369 is similar to the process New York used for their partisan primaries last year.

This is part of the instructions that the Board of Elections in the City of New York provided to voters.

They were instructed to mark their ballots in order of preference.

They could rank as many or as few candidates as they liked.

There were 14 Democratic candidates for mayor in New York City last year.

Counting of the ballots took place over eight rounds.

After the first round, write-in ballots were eliminated.

Votes for those voters who wrote in a candidate for their first choice were reallocated to their second choice.

Looking at the last line of the table, Isaac Wright Jr. was the second choice of 12 of the voters.

So you see his vote count go from 2,242 to 2,254.

He was eliminated in the next round of counting because he had the fewest number of votes.

After eight rounds of voting, Eric Adams, who had started out with the most top rankings, became the Democratic nominee and won in the general election.

If this were Seattle's primary under Council Bill 12120369, both Mayor Adams and Catherine Garcia would have moved to the general election.

The city charter provides a limited number of options for the city council to take on an initiative.

First, it can enact the initiative, putting it into law.

If the council chose to do this, it would not go on the ballot.

Second, it can reject the initiative.

I think of this as not necessarily rejecting the content of the initiative, but rejecting the opportunity the charter gives you to enact the initiative.

If the council rejects the initiative, it must place it on the ballot for the voters to decide.

The third option is that the council may place the initiative on the ballot with an alternative.

Council Member Lewis has proposed such an alternative in Council Bill 120369, which would use ranked choice voting in Seattle's primaries.

If the council wants to enact the initiative, it would file the certificate of sufficiency and would adopt an ordinance enacting the provisions of initiative 134. No council has yet proposed enacting the initiative.

If the council wants to send the initiative to the ballot alone without an alternative, it should file the certificate of sufficiency in clerk file 31495 and pass resolution 32057, which places initiative 134 on the ballot without an alternative.

It can choose to adopt a resolution stating its collective support or opposition to the initiative as a separate action.

If the council wants to propose an alternative to go on the ballot, it would file the certificate of sufficiency, file clerk, file 314498, which indicates the council's intent to propose an alternative, adopt council bill 120369, enacting the alternative, and pass substitute version two of resolution 32057. Substitute version two would place both initiative 134 and Council Bill 120369 on the ballot.

If the Council decides to place both initiative 134 and its alternative on the ballot, state law dictates the questions that will be asked of the voters.

First, they will be asked if either initiative 134 or the alternative should go into law.

And second, they will be asked if question one is successful, which of the two options do they want to go into effect?

voters would be able to vote no on Question 1 and still vote for one of the options under Question 2. If Question 1 is successful, the option that receives the most votes under Question 2 would become law shortly after the election is certified.

Practically, both Initiative 134 and Council Bill 120369 recognize that it will take time to update King County elections technology to change the elections, and it will require some additional voter education.

Initiative 134 would go into effect no later than the 2025 election.

Council Bill 120369 would go into effect no later than the 2027 election.

And do you have any questions?

Before we move to questions, I'm going to ask my colleagues that this isn't the time to debate and have a vibrant, robust discussion.

We'll do that when we actually adopt the agenda and move into item number one.

are item number two.

So this is an opportunity to ask clarifying questions for the record and for the public.

So are there any questions based on Lish Whiston's PowerPoint and the explanation of the approval voting and the alternative, which is Council Bill 120369?

Okay.

Well, that was easy.

I was hoping there'd be a few.

OK.

Well, with that, thank you, Lish.

I'm guessing you'll be on standby for us.

Yes.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Handy, as well.

So moving along on our calendar, our agenda, we will go to the, let's see, we've got to move to adopt the agenda.

There's no objection.

The agenda will be adopted.

not seeing or hearing an objection, the agenda is indeed adopted.

Moving on to F, items of business.

Item number one, Madam Clerk, can you please read item number one into the record?

excuse me, agenda item one, clerk file 314495, report of the city clerk on the certificate of sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approval voting for mayor, city attorney, and city council member primary elections.

Thank you.

Since this is my matter, clerk file one, or three one, I'm sorry, 4495 is notice that initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go on the ballot.

The clerk file is on the agenda today for the city council to now determine what action will be taken in response to initiative 134. I move to file clerk file 314495. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to file the clerk file.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the filing of clerk file 314495.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Salant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Williams.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the clerk file will be placed on file.

Let's move to item number two.

Will the clerk please read item number two into the record?

Agenda item two, clerk file 314498, city council motion and declaration of city council intent to reject initiative number 134 relating to voting in city primary elections and placing initiative number 134 on the November 8, 2022 ballot in conjunction with the ranked choice voting measure, which is council bill 120369, a proposed alternative measure on the same matter.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, I believe you have a motion.

I move to approve and file Clerk File 314498.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve Clerk File 314498. And Council Member Lewis, you are the sponsor of this bill.

Can you please address this item?

Thank you so much, Council President.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I want to say at the front that In this entire conversation, I don't know that there is necessarily a fundamental need to change the nature of our elections in Seattle.

With districts and democracy vouchers, we have competitive elections where young people and people of color are viable candidates.

I myself, as the youngest council member, can personally attest to that, but the question's been called, and we are here in City Hall, to discuss whether there should be measures that are advanced for the people of Seattle to decide whether the system of our elections is or is not appropriate and should be changed.

The proponents of Initiative 134 have forced that question, and I commend them for it and commend them for their organizing.

I'm not going to use my platform today to disparage their proffered alternative approval voting beyond some comments I will make later about the limited adoption of approval voting, but rather I'm bringing this proposal forward today to give voters the choice to choose the election reform that is more broadly adopted across the United States.

The approval measure voting before us is conceptually new and sparsely adopted in the United States.

Only Fargo, North Dakota, and St. Louis, Missouri use this system.

And we would be by far the largest jurisdiction in the country to use this comparatively novel way of conducting elections.

By contrast, A couple of United States states, Maine and Alaska, use rank choice voting, and it's much more broadly adopted, as do the municipalities bearing more similarity in size to Seattle, like Oakland, California, New York, and San Francisco, California.

In total, more than 30 American jurisdictions of all sizes have adopted some form of rank choice voting.

I'm not going to go into detail in explaining the mechanics of the Ranked Choice Voting proposal.

I think Liz Schwitzen did a really serviceable job of that.

But I will just talk a little bit about some of the attributes of Ranked Choice Voting that I do find appealing and that a lot of advocates in our community have proffered and found appealing over several years of organizing to adopt this alternative method of conducting elections.

Under ranked choice voting models, candidates need to demonstrate strong and broad appeal to be successful.

Polarizing candidates have a more difficult time of securing first place preference showings and fade in support as votes are reassigned in multiple rounds of assigning the vote.

It is important to note that the principle of one person, one vote still applies with ranked choice voting.

At the end of any reassignment of preference, only one final vote remains that is tallied, reflecting the voter's use of their franchise.

In practical terms, ranked choice voting greatly enhances the discourse of our elections.

And I'm going to digress just for a moment to summarize what I thought was a really enlightening social media exchange a couple of years ago from Girmay Zahalai, our county council colleague across the street, who has similarly advocated for King County to adopt a system of ranked choice voting.

Council member Zahalai gave an example that all of us as candidates can relate to.

that if you go out knocking on doors and you talk to one of your neighbors, especially in a crowded primary, and that neighbor says, oh, sorry, I'm not voting for you.

I'm voting for one of your opponents.

They're my friend.

They're my neighbor.

That's who I'm going to vote for in this election.

Under our current model of voting, that conversation ends.

But under ranked choice voting, You can stay at the door and say, well, you can rank me as a second preference.

So let me talk a little bit about what I want to do.

Let me talk about what my issues are.

Let me talk about how, as a member of the city council or as a mayor or a city attorney, I can respond to your issues.

And let me, more importantly, hear what your issues are and how I can set my priorities to address them.

The conversation doesn't end the same way it currently ends in our one vote and it's over primary process.

As I alluded to just now by referencing Councilmember Zahilay's interest in this and the process that King County has been pursuing over the last couple of years with several King County Councilmembers, not just Councilmember Zahilay, it's very likely if I were to predict and get out my crystal ball that King County will, at some time in the near future, adopt some form of ranked choice voting.

There is significant momentum and significant support for a proposal like that.

We got close to having a King County measure that was going to be put forward this year, from what I can tell from the public discourse on that issue, but they decided to wait for another cycle.

I do just want to raise as a potential issue, it is possible if approval voting were to be adopted, that Seattle would have a non-conforming voting system to our umbrella jurisdiction in King County.

I do just want to raise that possibility of a future where approval voting is what is adopted instead.

That is not necessarily a reason for the voters to not do it, but they should have a potential choice on the ballot that has a stronger chance of being adopted by the umbrella jurisdiction and that is more in line with what state voting reform advocates have proposed and supported as a long-term alternative to how we conduct our elections.

I also just want to address that it is totally proper and is a totally clear charter power of the Seattle City Council to put an alternative on the ballot when a initiative gets the proper signatures to qualify.

This is something that the Seattle City Council has done in recent history.

I was not on the council the last time those deliberations were conducted, but my colleague Councilmember Sawant was, and perhaps she can discuss that process.

I know that Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson were legislative assistants at that time, and Councilmember Peterson was actually a legislative assistant to the council member who adopted that alternative, and maybe he could speak to that process.

I'll leave it to them to discuss if there is any firsthand experience that might be helpful to us from 2014. But I just want to offer that that process that involved a preschool measure offers similarities to the question that we're faced with today.

The extent of that similarity is something we can reasonably disagree on.

But fundamentally, the council faced a similar question in weighing Council Member Burgess' alternative.

Should the voters of the city, in facing a question to programmatically respond to a demonstrated need, in that case, preschool, in this case, the method that we conduct our elections, have an alternative option that proposes to solve the same problem with a different method?

That's why the council has a clear charter power to exercise its authority to send the voters an alternative if we deem it is appropriate for the public discourse in the city.

There is nothing unusual or untoward in our decision to exercise it.

Indeed, there is strong and demonstrated public support for this ranked choice voting alternative.

We just went through a public comment session where two times the number of people called in supporting ranked choice voting as called in supporting the approval voting alternative.

That proves this is an appropriate question for the voters to be the final arbiters of whether this is something we should or shouldn't do.

By electing to not put this proposal on the ballot, we are in effect depriving the people of Seattle of the chance to make the final decision.

I want to give some thanks and allow my colleagues opportunities to weigh in to our city clerks for queuing up this process to duly consider this alternative proposal.

I want to thank Liz Schwitzen on Council Central staff for doing a really excellent job of putting a proposal together that is representative of the rank choice system that we see in lots of jurisdictions around the country and indeed around the world.

I want to thank Council President Juarez and her Chief of Staff, Brindell, for really being excellent collaborators in setting up the process and going really far and away to be accommodating and making sure that we had everything lined up to give this due consideration, and I really, really appreciate the clarity and the skill and flexibility in making sure we could do that and give ample opportunity to the public to weigh in now in a couple of public comment sessions.

I also want to thank my Chief of Staff, Jacob Thorpe, for really shepherding this process in my office.

And with that, Council President, I will turn it back over to you to facilitate the discussion.

Floor discussion and Council Member Lewis, I remind me to come back to you if you have some closing remarks or if you want to close this out.

So with that, the floor is open.

All right, Council Member Herbold.

I was deferring to other folks who might want to speak first but somebody who worked for a brief time in radio, the air makes me uncomfortable.

So as The sponsor ably described rent-based voting is used widely across the US.

I have a different count of the number of jurisdictions, but we can take that up another time.

The number I have is 52 different jurisdictions.

including states and local jurisdictions.

Ranking candidates in order of preference allows for more nuance in voting, removes that question that I know we have a lot when we're voting, which is, should we vote our conscience or should we vote for the candidate most likely to win, even if it's not your first choice?

Approval voting does not allow for the same level of nuance.

And instead of ranking candidates, you only vote for those that you approve of.

This means by voting for more than one candidate, you are voting equally for each, even if you have a strong preference for one of the candidates.

I want to quote Jasmine Smith, the political director for Washington Bus, who recently wrote, if Seattle were to adopt approval voting, it would be the first major city with a majority white electorate to use this system, a scenario that risks giving white voters an outsized voice in determining election outcomes at the expense of voters of color.

Some have said that adding an alternative option to the ballot is influencing the outcome of the election.

Council is not interfering with the initiative process.

The initiative process explicitly grants the Council the authority to add an alternative option to the ballot.

By design, the initiative process says if our city is going to consider an alternate voting system by initiative, we can allow a vote on both approval voting and ranked voting is our responsibility and career voters have the ability to choose a voting system that they most support.

Appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward and appreciate as the sponsor said, Council President, Madam President, your flexibility and allowing us to have this discussion.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam President just give me the sign of my internet is unstable.

I'll be brief, I really appreciate the dialogue that we're having today the dialogue that's been brought forward, and initially initially initiated by initiative 134 proponents and those who are seeking to add rank choice voting as an alternative to the ballot I want to thank Councilmember for his work with the staff members that he noted to really provide an option, an option for voters, and I wanted to echo some of the comments from the sponsor and Councilmember herbal sending an alternative to the ballot for voters to choose is not precedent setting.

Council Member Tim Burgess spearheaded this effort less than 10 years ago to offer voters the alternative regarding childcare that Council Member Lewis noted.

This isn't an initiative about, excuse me, this is a question to voters about engaging in our democracy.

And there's nothing more democratic than giving voters a choice on something as consequential.

I have friends who are supporting both policy approaches, folks who similarly want there to be more engagement and more options.

And I think it goes to show that there's a long and deep standing interest in broadening out options for voters to cast their vote for a candidate who really represents them.

Proponents of each approach will then get a chance to talk to the voters and the voters will get to weigh in and make the decision.

Seattle has been on the cutting edge of voter reform in our country.

Other jurisdictions continue to reach out and ask about how our local elections work.

They are very excited to learn more about the Democracy Voucher Program and our election transparency laws.

We are on the national map for the ways that we have improved voting and voter access over the years.

And now with this option, voters will get the chance again to decide about how we will continue to amend how voters can engage in our local election.

I'm going to be voting yes and really appreciate the dialogue today.

And I know that there will be much more dialogue to come throughout the next few months.

And again, thanks to everyone because this is really about increasing voter turnout and increasing voter options.

And I think the conversation is to come and we'll continue to evolve over the next few months with both options.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I will be voting yes to put a ranked choice voting option on the ballot alongside approval voting.

Democracy means much more than simply having the ability to vote for a candidate.

How the votes are structured can have a big impact and the ability to have a democratic debate to win support prior to the vote has the biggest effect.

And the reality is big business and the super rich own most of the forums of that debate.

In Seattle, they own the Seattle Times and the TV stations.

and they use those media to blatantly promote their own interests.

There is a limit to how much struggling working people can donate to an election campaign, but there is no limit to the spending of corporate facts which are used by the wealthy.

For example, last year, I faced a recall election which started less than a year after I was reelected in 2019. The signatures required to put the recall on the ballot were collected by paid signature gatherers.

With enough money, anything can be put on the ballot.

In fact, the Seattle Approves ballot initiative before us today was put on the ballot by paid signature gatherers from essentially two deep pocketed donors.

When we consider the structure of elections, we have to consider not only how it might work in a hypothetical a hypothetical, apolitical, or neutral world, which we all know does not exist under capitalism, but how big business can use their resources to take advantage of each system in reality.

For example, in presidential elections, the two-party system is used to pressure voters to accept the so-called lesser evil.

As a result, American working people have never had the option to vote for a presidential candidate in the general election who actually represents our interests, who support progressive measures like single payer universal health care, which the overwhelming majority of working people support.

The two party system has been used ruthlessly by big business and the party establishments for decades to disrupt all efforts to create a new workers party and to stamp out challenges from left populist candidates like Bernie Sanders.

In Seattle, the current top two primary system has been a relatively good electoral structure given the fundamentally undemocratic nature of elections under capitalism.

It offers candidates to often win support on the basis of our program without being immediately drowned in lesser evil arguments.

It bears similarities to what are called runoff elections in other countries globally, allowing a greater opening for third parties and independent candidates than many other structures.

Approval voting would be a major step backwards.

While it is being presented as more democratic, it would in fact give even more of an upper hand to big business by filling the ballot with well-financed, bland candidates who ostensibly stand for nothing and attacking working-class candidates with smear campaigns reinforced by corporate media and big business-backed money they would be in a much better position to control who can make it onto the general election ballot where there is far higher voter turnout and to block working class and socialist candidates from the outset.

Approval voting makes no distinction between whom a voter really wants to win the election and whom they merely do not actively oppose.

But that lack of opposition is strongly influenced by the forces in society who control the debate.

Big business candidates rarely campaign openly on their plans to maximize the profits of the wealthy at the expense of workers.

Instead, their campaigns have empty slogans and pictures of their families and pets.

They have fancy ads talking about how they want to address the homelessness crisis, make Seattle affordable, and keep our communities safe.

All this is a coded way to make it very clear they will be loyal to the political establishment and corporate interests.

They will not mention rent control, taxing Amazon and other wealthy corporations to pay for the housing we need, real measures of police accountability, or concrete steps to reduce the deep inequality at the root of crime in our neighborhoods.

Approval voting is a scheme to drown out anti-establishment voices in a sea of pro-establishment candidates.

In this process, the goal of big business is to deny voters the opportunities to have any real alternatives.

Ranked choice voting is significantly better than approval voting because it at least gives voters the ability to prioritize who they actually want to win the election.

rather than lumping everyone together into a general category of approval and drowning out the differences.

However, I think ranked choice voting is still less democratic than our current top two primary system, which, as I said, bears similarities to runoff voting in other countries.

Socialist Alternative has had experience with rank choice voting in Minneapolis and we have found that the political establishment can use the rank choice voting to gain the system and prevent third parties from gaining a foothold.

Candidates recommend to their supporters whom to list as second and third choices.

When a socialist candidate looks like they may win the election, the political establishment throws well-financed additional candidates into the race who can get the second and third round votes of wealthier and more conservative voters, such that the socialist can come in first place in first round and get drowned out in later rounds.

Essentially, this allows the political establishment to pool the votes of several candidates campaigning to different demographics.

This is only possible because they have the money to run several candidates for the same position, but it can have a big impact.

In 2017, Socialist Alternative ran a candidate in Minneapolis who had the most first choice votes, but was eventually knocked out of the race by the Democratic establishment through just this kind of vote pooling.

While rank choice voting is significantly better than approval voting, I do not support changing the current top two primary system to either of them.

The reason the current primary system is being challenged is precisely because it has seen successful independent and third party challenges, and victories that have disrupted the status quo and the chamber of commerce and the wealthy of the city are fed up.

However, I do support putting rank choice voting on the ballot.

I think voters in Seattle should have the democratic choice to vote for rank choice voting if they prefer, not just approval voting, which has had lots of money behind putting it on the ballot and not for no reason.

Elections in the United States have always been heavily weighted against working class third party candidates.

Despite that, socialist alternative rank and file vote workers and union members and community activists have been able to win four elections on the basis of fighting for working class demands like the $15 an hour minimum wage, the Amazon tax, renters rights, and standing with working people with a strong enough movement behind us.

Regardless of which electoral system is adopted, that will continue to be true, which is that working class people can win victories if we have a movement building approach based on strong demands, but we should not accept attacks on democracy lying down either.

I will be voting yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Lewis, do you have some closing remarks before I make a few statements and then we'll move to a vote?

It looks like there are a couple other- They just showed up.

Thank you.

Did not?

You guys gotta be a little bit quicker there.

So Council Member Nelson and then Council Member Peterson.

Councilor Nelson.

I'm sorry, please move on to Council Member Peterson, and then I'll go.

Okay.

Are you ready Councilor Peterson.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Let's see.

Well, to provide more options to Seattle voters, I'll support Council Member Lewis's proposal to add the rank choice voting to the ballot.

That way voters will have three choices, initiative 134, rank choice voting, and the current system, which already includes major election reforms, such as democracy vouchers, easy to use mail-in ballots, and extended voting periods.

As I understand it, this afternoon may be our only opportunity to address these complex issues officially before they become external campaigns.

So I'd like to present an additional and somewhat skeptical view toward all of this.

This is just about elections for nonpartisan offices in city government.

And right now the top local government concerns of people in Seattle are increasing public safety and reducing homelessness.

If either of these two new measures is enacted into law, Will they really increase public safety or reduce homelessness.

I'm not so sure.

I'm afraid that no matter how much we tinker with the local electoral system in Seattle, which already includes robust reforms, there's no easy fix to guarantee that will generate more candidates for city government.

who are qualified for city government, who adequately appreciate what city government does, who will be responsive to their constituents, and who can deliver on the basic requirements of our city charter.

And so while I'm supporting adding more options to the ballot, I don't think either option will solve the problems facing Seattle today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

With that, Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

So today I'm not going to take a stand for or against approval voting or rank choice voting.

I am taking a stand for good governance.

And so for the viewing public, Initiative 134, which would replace the way the city of Seattle officials are elected with a new system called approval voting, Initiative 134 gathered more than the required minimum 2,000, 26,000 signatures to qualify for the vote.

And it is standard practice for council to just send that measure to the ballot.

And ranked choice voting has not qualified for the ballot.

Instead of running an initiative, advocates opted to persuade us to advance their proposal by sending it to the voters as our preferred alternative, which we've done only twice in the past 20 years.

And so here we are about to vote on changing the way Seattleites elect their leaders.

And before doing that, we should first identify the problem we're trying to fix with our existing system.

transparently deliberate on potential solutions, consult experts, and conduct extensive constituent outreach, just like we would on any other important issue.

And we haven't done that.

This is our first meeting, our first public meeting on the matter.

And Council Member Lewis brought up the last time that we sent an alternative to the ballot, and yes, we do have that authority, And in that case Councilmember Burgess had been developing his preschool program for months.

And so that is that's not the same.

I don't think that the situations are are equal here.

So I don't know if approval voting is better or worse than ranked choice voting or even what's wrong with our current system.

But I do know that we're about to take five if we take five votes to send an alternative to the ballot, that could that could influence the outcome of the election.

without a lot of public discussion on our preferred alternative.

And I think that there's a better way of coming to these kinds of decisions.

So I think that council should just get out of the way, send I-34 to the ballot and let the voters decide in November.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Lewis, do you want to make any statements before I say a few and then we go to a vote?

Yes, thank you, Madam President, I'll be I'll be very brief.

But I think there might be a few things I could say to respond to the concerns raised by Councilmember Nelson which, you know, I completely respect but disagree with.

I think it's perfectly within the right of the council when facing a question like this to have the people of the city be the final deciders as we do have a very strong and representative movement in the city towards ranked choice voting.

This is a election option that, like I said earlier, has been, has had the benefit of an extensive parallel process over at King County that did inform the process that we are proposing to send to the voters.

A lot of the potential issues with administering the change in election type can be accommodated with the timeline that we have assigned.

The rank choice voting under this measure, I don't know if it was made clear in Lisha's presentation, if passed by voters, would not go into effect until 2027. And part of that is to give King County elections the space and the time for the rulemaking and the implementation that goes into any kind of significant major change.

The people of the city who have really reached out and advocated for a model like this I think shows that the best way forward is to let them make the final decision.

As I said in my comments earlier, I think this discussion has gotten to a point where we run a risk of making a more undemocratic decision.

by depriving the voters of making that choice based on the movement that's turned out for this.

And in essence, there will be a proxy vote where voting no on approval voting is going to be reflecting a yes vote for ranked choice voting anyway in terms of how The question has been framed in the minds of many voters in the city.

So for those purposes and the reasons that I stated in my opening statement, I do think this is an appropriate action for the council to take.

The people of the city are going to make the final decision, as they rightly should, on whether we should adopt this.

And this gives them the opportunity to do so.

I'm going to make a few comments and then we'll go to a vote.

Council Member Lewis, you raised a really good point, and I actually had thought about sharing this as well.

Us going to a district system, seven districts, and us having democracy vouchers has expanded the opportunity for many people to run otherwise that would not run.

And I think Council Member Councilmember, I was going to say Lewis, but Councilmember Peterson mentioned about mail in ballots.

So I don't think that either approval voting or rank choice voting is going to fix some of the issues that Councilmember Peterson brought up.

But I will say this is kind of maybe turning the mirror on ourselves.

I'm always I'm always a little bit suspicious when people use communities of color as a reason to pass any type of initiative, bill, proposal.

Because I don't think we can look away from the fact that six of our nine council members were either legislative aides or worked in this council in some way or were mentored by a council member.

And I'm not taking anything away from my colleagues that fit that description.

So I just want to be clear about our choices.

And my main concern is increasing candidate participation is getting more candidates that haven't had the opportunity to benefit from such a pipeline.

And that's just that's just my observation.

And again, I don't mean to cast any aspersions against my colleagues, but that is indeed a fact.

So that being said, I think we should just go forward at this point, Madam Clerk, and.

We'll just call the roll on the approval and the following of the court file.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Williams?

No.

Eight in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

So with that, colleagues, the clerk.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, Madam President.

I thought I heard eight in favor, two opposed.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Is that correct?

Yes, it is.

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

I didn't catch the math either.

So it is 7-2 and it passes, correct?

Yes, it does.

Okay.

So the clerk file is approved and filed.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to the motion and declaration of the city council intent.

So with that, since this clerk file has passed, we will move on to item number three, which is also council member Lewis.

Will the clerk please read item number three into the record.

Agenda item three, council bill 120369, an ordinance relating to ranked choice voting, requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 8th, 2022 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the city of Seattle, of the city of a proposition to institute rank choice voting for primary elections for city of Seattle elected officials, adding a new chapter 2.18 to the Seattle municipal code, proposing a ballot title and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Lewis, I believe you have a motion for us.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to pass council bill 120369. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

It's been moved and seconded.

And Council Member Lewis, this is indeed yours, and you are recognized in order to address the bill.

Thank you, Council President.

I will rest on my previous comments from the previous discussion.

I think you also have a motion for me to amend.

Yes, I do have a motion to amend.

The next one.

Sorry, I'm just going down my notes here.

To amend Council Bill 120369 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I should have caught that and let you know, gave you a heads up.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120369 as presented on Amendment 1. Council Member Luce, you are the sponsor and you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

This amendment adds a couple of technical changes.

If Lishwin is still here, he can answer if colleagues have any.

feedback on it, but it doesn't really change the substantive background of the process that we would be asking the voters to approve.

It clarifies a couple of passages and it just generally cleans up the initial proposal.

But I can cede time to Lish or as council president deems appropriate.

Thank you council member Lewis.

Do you want to fill us in that this is just ministerial or secondary to clean this up and then we can move on?

Yes, thank you.

This just is a technical amendment to improve the language in the bill, make it clearer about how the rank choice voting counting would occur.

Are there any questions of Lish on the technical amendment proposed by Council Member Lewis?

Okay, not seeing any.

Thank you, Lish, for being here.

Are there any more comments?

Not seeing any comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Swat?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and amendment number one is adopted.

My understanding, are there any further comments on the amended bill?

The bill, okay.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Ores.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Okay, so with that, it looks like it passes.

And so, excuse me, I gotta go back on the language here.

The bill passes as amended, the chair will sign it, and will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Great, moving on to item number four.

This is, Madam Clerk, will you please read item number four to the record?

agenda item for resolution 32057 a resolution regarding a voter proposed initiative measure concerning allowing voters to vote for multiple candidates in primary elections authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the ethics and elections commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative measure to appear on the November 8, 2022 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed initiative measure on the November 8, 2022 election ballot and providing for the publication of such proposed initiative measure.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

As sponsor of this resolution, I move to adopt Resolution 32057. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

At the top of this agenda, we passed clerk file 314495 the certificate of sufficiency.

Initiative 1 34 gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

This resolution unamended will place initiative 1 34 on the ballot this november as originally intended as required under the city charter.

This council also passed clerk file 314498 which places the ranked choice alternative on the ballot in addition to the original proposal.

Therefore, we will now consider a substitute resolution, which places I-134 on the ballot with the alternative.

Council Member, are there any comments before I hand it off to Council Member Lewis for a moment?

Okay, not seeing any.

Council Member Lewis, I believe you have a motion for him.

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

I move to amend resolution 32057 by substituting version two for version one as presented on the agenda.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you for the second.

It's been moved and seconded to substitute the resolution.

Council Member Lewis, would you like to address the substitute?

Yes, thank you, Council President.

And thank you, Council President, for navigating the Byzantine agenda process this afternoon.

You're doing an excellent job.

I don't really have extensive remarks on this.

This substitute reflects the changes, the substantive changes based on the actions that we have previously taken in this meeting and would just urge that we pass the amendment and then pass the underlying resolution reflecting the changes in how the council has decided to proceed.

to the very end, but are there any comments on the substitute?

Okay, not seeing or hearing any further comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute resolution?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Great.

The motion carries and the substitute is adopted in version two of the resolution is before the council.

Are there any comments on version two of the resolution before us?

Okay, not seeing any, so now we're gonna do the amended.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended resolution?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Swant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

The amended resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the resolution or the legislation on my behalf?

Let's see.

Are there any other comments?

So now, are we done?

We should be done, right?

That concludes business.

Okay, hold up everybody.

Okay, got it.

Sorry, I switched up papers here.

Before we adjourn, I want to thank Council Member Lewis and his staff and for getting all this material to us and all the information and a huge thank you to Lish Whitson.

Lish, thank you for providing not only a PowerPoint and a guide and a memo and a briefing, And we wanna thank the city attorney's office for walking us through some of these issues.

I wanna thank all my colleagues who engaged in the discussion and the debate about whether or not approval voting or rank choice voting.

It looks like at the end of the day, both matters will go forward.

So with that, before we adjourn, I see Council Member Lewis has, is that an old hand Council Member Lewis or a new hand?

That's just a new good of the order, Madam President.

I want to also thank you again, just for running a complicated process this afternoon and making it look easy.

And also just really want to thank Brindell in your office, who was an incredible asset in lining up this process and just making sure everything was done efficiently and professionally.

So thank you.

And of course, Jacob Thorpe, my chief of staff for for measuring that, or ushering that forward too, as well as Lish.

But I really wanted to take a moment, Council President, to really, you did an excellent job presiding over a very long meeting today, so thank you.

Well, if we were playing Seattle City Council bingo, I did not see Byzantine coming up.

So thank you for that.

Colleagues, this does conclude the terms of business on today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is Tuesday, July 19th at two o'clock.

I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon and we are adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.