Vote for Propositions 1, 2 and 3 | Letter

It is a misconception 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. Currently each voter has one vote for the member representing their district; Proposition 1 gives each voter three votes. The misconception confuses representative districts, which we have now, with the proposed residency districts.

It is a misconception 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.  Currently each voter has one vote for the member representing their district; Proposition 1 gives each voter three votes. The misconception confuses representative districts, which we have now, with the proposed residency districts. Council Members in residency districts represent the whole county, not simply the district where they live. The prosecuting attorney, state law and the Supreme Court all agree that such residency districts meet legal requirements for equal voting (the PA’s memo, available online, includes relevant laws).

Another misconception is “separation of powers.”  This stems from modeling our charter on the Whatcom Charter.  Unlike Whatcom, we do not independently elect an executive and provisions in the charter to separate county administration from the council have proved unrealistic and unworkable. Proposition 2 provides a reality-based relationship between county administration and the council. Some argue the propositions would “give Lopez too much power.”  Or that proposition 1 would marginalize Lopez. This is the same one-person, one-vote misconception.  Proposition 1 assures geographic diversity; insisting that one of the three council members live on Lopez, Shaw or Decatur does not change the fact that everyone voting in the county has equal weight in electing them. Nor does it allow that member to ignore the needs of their constituents on other islands.

Finally there is a misconception that the CRC was undemocratic. We adopted Roberts Rules at our first meeting and they were enforced throughout the process. Each meeting included discussing proposed changes, listening to community members and concerns from CRC members (including dissenting members). A CRC rule required each proposition to be voted on at three meetings.  Proposals made early on had more opportunity for discussion. That the majority continued to support these propositions is evidence that most of the CRC members agree they represent the best possible improvements. Vote for greater power over your government. Vote for Propositions 1, 2, and 3.

Madrona Murphy

Lopez Island