Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Roach v. Richardson v. Bunk? If only

Post by Kim Bradford on Sep. 24, 2010 at 10:14 am with 4 Comments »
September 24, 2010 5:41 pm

The reconstituted Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board has weighed in on a race that’s flummoxed many editorial writers, not to mention voters: the 31st district contest between state Sen. Pam Roach and Sumner City Councilman Matt Richardson.

Calling the race a choice of “Vulgarity vs. Obscenity,” the P-I board says it couldn’t bring itself to endorse either of “these seriously flawed candidates.” Instead, the editorial board suggests, voters should write in the name of Raymond Bunk, a Democrat who was eliminated in the primary election.

Bunk, a Federal Way police officer, is an excellent choice; we endorsed him in the primary along with fellow Democrat Ron Weigelt. Unfortunately, Bunk is not eligible to win. According to the Secretary of State’s office, Washington’s “sore loser” law prohibits election officials from counting votes for failed primary candidates in the general election.

It is a wonder, though, that an eligible write-in option has not emerged in that district. The race is ripe for a third choice.

Leave a comment Comments → 4
  1. It’s too bad Representative Chris Hurst in the 31st district didn’t have the good sense to refrain from endorsing one of the candidates. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  2. I agree with this opinion piece. I voted for Bunk in the primary.

    However, there is a viable write in candidate: None of the Above. While it won’t prevent the winner from going to Olympia this time, if enough voters write in None of the Above, it may constrain the winner to know that a large percentage of their constituents thinks they are a turkey.

  3. jimkingjr says:

    Oh, yes- none of the above. As much a non-starter as the P-I endorsing a candidate who is ineligible. Glad to see the P-I is as irrelevant as ever.

    A “none of the above” vote won’t even be counted. No one will ever know.

  4. Is Washington’s “sore loser” law even constitutional?

    The Washington State Constitution declares the requirements for eligibility. I don’t see anywhere that eligibility may be further restricted by law.

    Those requirements btw are eligible to vote, and resident in the district. There’s no requirement of not having lost the primary.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0