How I voted:
A quick note: I generally try to be fair to both parties. I have my (very clear) preferences, but I do try to be accurate. That said, I refuse to give tea partiers any serious consideration. Governments require taxes, and indeed, our tax levels are far lower now than in years past. Slashing taxes at any cost, while still demanding federal benefits and entitlements, is not a platform that should be given any serious consideration, until we have fairy wands that can make all the money the state needs without crashing the economy.
I filled this out in the order in which they appeared on my ballot. There are very few people I know who will read this who will share an identical ballot, and many of my friends will only share one thing in common: the presidency. (And there are other friends who won't vote at all because they're not American citizens.) But I hope that my friends, especially my in-state friends, find this helpful. Even if you don't agree with my selections, I hope this is useful to you, and I hope you all vote. You have a voice -- use it.
Washington State Measures
Initiative 1185: Should we require a 2/3 majority before raising taxes? Generally speaking, if it's a Tim Eyman initiative, I know to reject it on principle, but I always look a little deeper. This initiative means it takes a supermajority for the state to raise taxes... but a simple majority to lower taxes. This is an inherently bad idea. It encourages gridlock, and will stifle the things that always get choked out by Eyeman's initiatives: libraries, public transit, and schools. NO.
Initiative 1240: Should we allow charter schools? Charter schools sound like a great idea. They do. But here's the problem: when they say they're available to any student, that's not true. Charter schools can and do reject those students who they don't think will succeed. It allows them to pick and choose their students. But public schools don't have the right to pick and choose students. Public schools have to educate everyone. And when charter schools can pick who they have as students, they look great on paper, while the traditional public schools start to suffer, as they are left with the more problematic students. So public schools suffer, and funds are cut, and they have smaller populations, so they're cut... the idea of charter schools is one I think can work when done right. It's still not done right here. NO.
Referendum 74: Should we uphold gay marriage? This is the single most important thing on this ballot. Period. I'll repeat that, so everyone sees: THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON THIS BALLOT. If you live in Washington State and vote for only one thing, vote for this. The opponents of Referendum 74 have said a lot of nonsense. "Think of the children!" Yes, I will: I'll think of those children who have two parents of the same gender, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage as valid. "This changes the definition of marriage!" No more so than interracial marriage changed the definition of marriage. "God doesn't want it!" Tell you what. Get God on the phone to speak for himself, and maybe I'll listen. But even if religion was clear on the topic -- and I'd argue that it's clear in support of love and equality, not in prejudice and bigotry -- it wouldn't matter. This is a civil issue. No churches will be forced to marry gay people... and those churches who want to will be allowed to. This is a civil rights issue, which means really it should be self-evident -- not something the majority gets to vote on. That's why they're called rights. I love my wife, and I want other people to have the right to marry the people they love. Uphold the civil rights which the legislature passed into law. APPROVE. Wait, no, that wasn't big enough. APPROVE THE HELL OUT OF THIS.
Initiative 502: Should marijuana be legalized and taxed? The war on drugs has failed. It's created an industry. And marijuana is hardly the most dangerous stuff out there. I've never actually smoked it or partaken in other fashions, and have no desire to, but it's unreasonable to me to treat people who do as criminals. Instead of spending way too much money on trying to stop people from using marijuana -- which hasn't worked -- let's just legalize it and tax it. Makes sense to me. YES.
Amendment 8221: Should we limit how much the state can borrow for infrastructure projects? This amendment will make it more difficult to invest in state infrastructure, draw money away from school-construction and road repairs; it also may increase our state's interest rates when we borrow money, lower our state's credit rating... it's not well-written. NO.
Amendment 8223: Should we allow UW and WSU to invest their funds in private companies with the state's approval? This will allow the schools to potentially lower tuition costs. There would be oversight, which greatly reduces the chance of corruption in the system. It is a method to fight rising tuition costs, and thus make higher education more accessible, though it is not without its risks. Still, I believe the potential outcome outweighs the potential risks. YES.
Advisory Bill 6635 and 2590: Should we support the legislature's decision or not? Remember when I said I automatically dislike anything Eyeman does? Well, this is the result of one of his previous initiatives. Regardless of how you vote on this, it has NO effect. Every time a new tax cut is eliminated or a tax is extended, it has to go on the ballot with somewhat damning language: "The legislature did X, without a vote of the people." So there has to be this additional thing to vote on that has NO affect on the actual decisions that were made.
That said, I support both 6635, which eliminated outdated tax-breaks for Wall Street banks and extending the gas tax. The state could use the income. MAINTAIN and MAINTAIN.
FEDERAL OFFICES
President: If you don't know how I'm voting for president, you may not have been paying attention. But, here's my rationale anyway: the incumbent has been turning the economy around. It's a slow process, but it took a while to get there, and Congress has attempted to block every forward step. He has not kept every promise he's made, but if you check his promises-kept and promises-in-progress ratio to promises-broken, promises-stalled, and promises-compromised... it's pretty good. He's managed to get us out of the Iraq war, he's removed Osama bin Laden as a threat, and he's got a solid foreign policy I agree with, using diplomacy as often as possible, and reserving our armed forces for when they must be used. I feel our president has been doing a great job. The other major-party candidate has no tax plan he's actually detailed -- it seems to be a fairy-tale where everyone pays less, but by sacrificing Big Bird to the mighty money-gods, our deficit closes through magic. His stances on women's rights, racial equality, gay rights, and almost everything else is abhorrant to me. As a person, he seems to have power- and control-issues, and I simply don't trust him. I have not heard anything from any Romney supporter other than, "Well, he's not Obama" -- which, as someone who approves of Obama, doesn't really do much convincing. The vice presidential nominees can be similarly compared.
I do have to speak about the secondary parties here, too. Jill Stein, of the Green party, has a platform very close to my own belief structure. But I am not voting for her. Why not? Because, as lovely as it would be to have a true multi-party system in this country, we simply don't have one. I will not go so far as to say that a vote for a secondary-party candidate is "throwing away your vote." The only way to do that is not to vote. But I will say that I believe that there will be no meaningful change from casting your vote with a secondary party. "Vote your conscience" is a term I hear a lot to support secondary-party candidates, and I agree. But politics is not about getting everything you want. There's compromise, and that, too, should be part of your conscience. If you can't compromise on anything, you'll lose everything. Is Obama a compromise for me? Technically, yes. He doesn't represent absolutely everything I stand for. I disagree with him on certain points, including education. But compromise is not a bad thing: it is through compromise that we form a nation. We work together for the greater whole. And Obama isn't much of a compromise for me. I'm proud to call him my president. Obama/Biden.
Senator: The incumbent, Maria Cantwell, has been a senator since 2001. She's been fighting for equal pay for women, for pell grants to help struggling students afford college, for jobs to form here in the US. The opposition, Michael Baumgartner, called Maria Cantwell "unqualified" to speak about birth control because she's not married, and doesn't even support abortion in cases of rape. That's the sort of out-of-touch people in Congress right now who are causing a great deal of our problems, focusing on culture war instead of getting our country's jobs moving again. Cantwell's been doing a great job. Let's keep her at it. Maria Cantwell.
Representative District 6: Derek Kilmer has legislative experience, and he's fought for jobs, for education, and for veterans. His opponent has no experience, and doesn't share my own progressive values. Derek Kilmer.
Representative District 1: Because of a combination of gerrymandering and the governor's race, I get to vote for district 1 for a one-month term. We have a tea-party conservative running against a woman who supports Wall Street legislation, the Buffet rule, and laws that will support small businesses. She has experience with small-businesses, having worked with several internet start-up companies. Susan DelBene.
State Offices
Governor: Jay Inslee supports education, public transportation, green jobs, environmentalism, and Wall Street oversight. His voting record on this is clear, after having served as the Representative for District 1 for many years. Rob McKenna pretends to not be partisan, but it's a lie. He's anti-choice, anti-marriage-equality, opposed to public transportation and environmental conservation, and tries to keep unjust tax loopholes open. He wants to slash spending to education and public transportation, destroy teachers' unions, wants to fight to get Obamacare repealed. In addition, for those who remember the nightmare of SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act," McKenna was a huge supporter of SOPA, and spoke out as someone from Washington state -- where Microsoft was -- and was a showcase for why SOPA was actually good; after all, the Washington State Attorney General liked it! McKenna stands for almost nothing I believe in. Inslee is one I agree with quite strongly. Jay Inslee.
Lieutenant Governor: Pay close attention. This doesn't happen often, particularly in the current political climate. I'm about to suggest to my Washington friends to vote for a Republican. Brad Owen, the democrat incumbent, is and has been horrible. He's right-leaning politically, fights against marijuana legalization, and is in general not especially progressive, which are the values I tend to hold. Bill Finkbeiner, the Republican challenger, wants to end partisan bickering -- which is a value I wish more Republicans had right now. He is more progressive than Owen on both abortion law and the environment. I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but in this case, I've got to go with the man whose values are closer to my own. Bill Finkbeiner.
Secretary of State: Both candidates have a reputation for competence. They both have a great deal of knowledge of elections procedures. They both are dedicated public servants. In this regard, whoever wins will be qualified for the position. Kim Wyman's been a county auditor, which is helpful. She wants to "modernize elections" -- which can potentially be very good, but could also be code for bringing in computerized ballot-boxes which have had, shall we say, problems with accuracy. She wants to make archived documents and historical artifacts more accessible; this is a good idea. Kathleen Drew, her opponent, wants to oppose efforts to suppress voting, push for same-day voter registration, and increase dropbox locations. These are all ideas that increase voter participation. I'm for that. She also wants to streamline registration services for corporations, non-profits, and charities, and... oh, look, part of her platform is working to repeal Citizens United. I like this a lot. I'll be honest -- part of my skepticism with Kim Wyman is that "(R)" by her name. But the Republican party has earned that in recent years. That said, if Wyman wins, I won't be heartbroken -- just skeptical, and watching her carefully. But I'm voting for Kathleen Drew.
State Treasurer: Jim McIntire has financial experience, and has been our treasurer for the last four years. He's argued for public funds' security. He tries to keep financial management transparent. He's been doing a great job. Sharon Hanek is a tea-partier, who, like most tea-partiers, apparently believes the government doesn't ever need to tax anything. Her background is "not from academia," but in "advising" people to invest their money wisely (from her own platform in the voter's guide). Not the best person to put in charge of the treasury. This one's a no-brainer. Jim McIntire.
State Auditor: On one hand, you've got a right-leaning Democrat who's moderate on Social issues and not particularly progressive. On the other, you've got a tea-partier who wants to cut all federal funding for education. This is a case of "bleah" vs. "Oh good lord no." I'll take "bleah": Troy Kelley.
Attorney General: Reagan Dunn, like Rob McKenna, pretends to be non-partisan, but is actually hyper-partisan. He's been getting tons of money from Karl Rove's super-PACs. He's got a terrible voting and attendance record for his time in public office. Bob Ferguson, in the other hand, has been hard-working in the King County Council. He fights for criminal justice, government transparency, environmental protection, and support for veterans. He successfully has challenged Tim Eyeman's initiatives, and I suspect he'll do so again given the chance. This choice is clear. Bob Ferguson.
Commissioner of Public Lands: On the one hand, we have Peter Goldmark, who's been doing a great job, doing everything he should be doing. On the other hand, we have a tea-partier. Putting a tea-partier in charge of public lands may be one of the stupidest ideas on this ballot, aside from needing to vote on a minority's civil rights. This one's absolutely a no-brainer. Peter J. Goldmark.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Do I love everything Randy Dorn's done? No. But overall, I've been very pleased with him so far, especially with getting rid of the WASL and taking steps towards replacing it with something actually somewhat sane. (We're not there yet, but I think we might actually be halfway there.) Plus, he's running unopposed. Randy Dorn.
Insurance Commissioner: The incumbent, Mike Kreidler, has cut insurance rates, required that contraceptives be included in prescription drug coverage for women, and helped increase the transparency of the health insurance market. His opponent, John R. Adams, wants to fight against Obamacare and roll back these steps forward we've made. Mike Kreidler.
State Senator District 23: On one hand, we have Christine Rolfes, a woman who has worked to improve our state's oil-spill response system, create maritime jobs, and modernize commercial shellfish enforcement laws. On the other hand, you've got Bret A. Treadwell, who apparently couldn't get something together for the voter's guide. Easy choice. Christine Rolfes.
State Representative Position 1 District 23: Sherry Appleton has experience, and a proven track record for being progressive. Tony Stephens is her opponent, running on a platform of "Status quo is bad and we have to shake up the government." Which... really isn't much of a platform by itself, and sounds a little too tea-party-like for me. Sherry Appleton.
State Representative Position 2 District 23: Drew Hanson has served a partial term, and in that time has introduced bills that would increase jobs, help train firefighters, and allow veterans early-registration for college. His opponent, despite sharing a name with Superman's Pal James Olsen, denies that the Japanese internment was a bad thing, and was actually banned from attending local school functions after being verbally abusive towards the staff. Again, an easy choice. Drew Hanson.
Kitsap County Commissioner District 1: Rob Gelder, the incumbent, has balanced protecting the environment while creating jobs. He's working on a pilot program to help uninsured people get medical help when they need it. His opponent is a vocal conservative whose whole platform is, "More jobs, not more taxes." Bleah. Robert "Rob" Gelder.
Kitsap County Commissioner District 2: The incumbent, Charlotte Garrido, seems to just about live the very progressive values I have. She's worked for affordable housing, environmental sustainability, financial responsibility, and public transit. Her opponent, Linda Simpson, is again running on the "we have to shake up the government," and added in that we need to create more jobs instead of protecting the environment. Charlotte Garrido.
State Supreme Court Positions 2 and 8: Susan Owens and Steve Gonzalez are running unopposed in these two positions, and they're who I voted for in the primary. Happily voting here for Susan Owens and Steve Gonzalez.
Supreme Court Position 9: Sheryl McCloud is non-partisan, fair, and impartial. Her opponent, Richard B. Sanders, is a staunch anti-choice conservative who wants to roll back LGBT rights (claiming that gay people don't need marriage or civil union protections because they have "more sexual partners" than straight people, etc), and is not someone we need in the state's supreme court. Sheryl McCloud.
Washington Court of Appeals Positon 2 District 2 Judge Position 2: Bjorgen has experience, speaks of judges needing compassion and discipline to see how the law affects people, and volunteers for a number of charitable organizations which show his compassion. His opponent, Loginsky, is also rated just as qualified, but lacks the experience. Between the experience and the talk of compassion from the bench, I'm voting Bjorgen.
Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Court 7: There's very little here for this, other than how these two candidates have been rated. Jennifer Forbes: Extremely Well Qualified by a number of agencies. Karen Klein: Well Qualified. I went to their websites; Karen has some good stuff (some great endorsements from groups I agree with, like Q-Law. But Jennifer has more. Both are being endorsed by other people I've voted for (like Gonzalez, above). On this one, both look good, but one looks a little better: Jennifer Forbes.
Kitsap County Public Utility District 1 Commissioner District 3 Lloyd S. Berg is an incumbent running unopposed, and he's got good environmental sense from what I've seen. Lloyd S. Berg.
That's how I've marked my ballot. Agree or disagree, that's fine -- just mark up your ballot with your thoughts and mail it in or drop it off. Let's make our democracy work.
I filled this out in the order in which they appeared on my ballot. There are very few people I know who will read this who will share an identical ballot, and many of my friends will only share one thing in common: the presidency. (And there are other friends who won't vote at all because they're not American citizens.) But I hope that my friends, especially my in-state friends, find this helpful. Even if you don't agree with my selections, I hope this is useful to you, and I hope you all vote. You have a voice -- use it.
Washington State Measures
Initiative 1185: Should we require a 2/3 majority before raising taxes? Generally speaking, if it's a Tim Eyman initiative, I know to reject it on principle, but I always look a little deeper. This initiative means it takes a supermajority for the state to raise taxes... but a simple majority to lower taxes. This is an inherently bad idea. It encourages gridlock, and will stifle the things that always get choked out by Eyeman's initiatives: libraries, public transit, and schools. NO.
Initiative 1240: Should we allow charter schools? Charter schools sound like a great idea. They do. But here's the problem: when they say they're available to any student, that's not true. Charter schools can and do reject those students who they don't think will succeed. It allows them to pick and choose their students. But public schools don't have the right to pick and choose students. Public schools have to educate everyone. And when charter schools can pick who they have as students, they look great on paper, while the traditional public schools start to suffer, as they are left with the more problematic students. So public schools suffer, and funds are cut, and they have smaller populations, so they're cut... the idea of charter schools is one I think can work when done right. It's still not done right here. NO.
Referendum 74: Should we uphold gay marriage? This is the single most important thing on this ballot. Period. I'll repeat that, so everyone sees: THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON THIS BALLOT. If you live in Washington State and vote for only one thing, vote for this. The opponents of Referendum 74 have said a lot of nonsense. "Think of the children!" Yes, I will: I'll think of those children who have two parents of the same gender, but the state doesn't recognize their marriage as valid. "This changes the definition of marriage!" No more so than interracial marriage changed the definition of marriage. "God doesn't want it!" Tell you what. Get God on the phone to speak for himself, and maybe I'll listen. But even if religion was clear on the topic -- and I'd argue that it's clear in support of love and equality, not in prejudice and bigotry -- it wouldn't matter. This is a civil issue. No churches will be forced to marry gay people... and those churches who want to will be allowed to. This is a civil rights issue, which means really it should be self-evident -- not something the majority gets to vote on. That's why they're called rights. I love my wife, and I want other people to have the right to marry the people they love. Uphold the civil rights which the legislature passed into law. APPROVE. Wait, no, that wasn't big enough. APPROVE THE HELL OUT OF THIS.
Initiative 502: Should marijuana be legalized and taxed? The war on drugs has failed. It's created an industry. And marijuana is hardly the most dangerous stuff out there. I've never actually smoked it or partaken in other fashions, and have no desire to, but it's unreasonable to me to treat people who do as criminals. Instead of spending way too much money on trying to stop people from using marijuana -- which hasn't worked -- let's just legalize it and tax it. Makes sense to me. YES.
Amendment 8221: Should we limit how much the state can borrow for infrastructure projects? This amendment will make it more difficult to invest in state infrastructure, draw money away from school-construction and road repairs; it also may increase our state's interest rates when we borrow money, lower our state's credit rating... it's not well-written. NO.
Amendment 8223: Should we allow UW and WSU to invest their funds in private companies with the state's approval? This will allow the schools to potentially lower tuition costs. There would be oversight, which greatly reduces the chance of corruption in the system. It is a method to fight rising tuition costs, and thus make higher education more accessible, though it is not without its risks. Still, I believe the potential outcome outweighs the potential risks. YES.
Advisory Bill 6635 and 2590: Should we support the legislature's decision or not? Remember when I said I automatically dislike anything Eyeman does? Well, this is the result of one of his previous initiatives. Regardless of how you vote on this, it has NO effect. Every time a new tax cut is eliminated or a tax is extended, it has to go on the ballot with somewhat damning language: "The legislature did X, without a vote of the people." So there has to be this additional thing to vote on that has NO affect on the actual decisions that were made.
That said, I support both 6635, which eliminated outdated tax-breaks for Wall Street banks and extending the gas tax. The state could use the income. MAINTAIN and MAINTAIN.
FEDERAL OFFICES
President: If you don't know how I'm voting for president, you may not have been paying attention. But, here's my rationale anyway: the incumbent has been turning the economy around. It's a slow process, but it took a while to get there, and Congress has attempted to block every forward step. He has not kept every promise he's made, but if you check his promises-kept and promises-in-progress ratio to promises-broken, promises-stalled, and promises-compromised... it's pretty good. He's managed to get us out of the Iraq war, he's removed Osama bin Laden as a threat, and he's got a solid foreign policy I agree with, using diplomacy as often as possible, and reserving our armed forces for when they must be used. I feel our president has been doing a great job. The other major-party candidate has no tax plan he's actually detailed -- it seems to be a fairy-tale where everyone pays less, but by sacrificing Big Bird to the mighty money-gods, our deficit closes through magic. His stances on women's rights, racial equality, gay rights, and almost everything else is abhorrant to me. As a person, he seems to have power- and control-issues, and I simply don't trust him. I have not heard anything from any Romney supporter other than, "Well, he's not Obama" -- which, as someone who approves of Obama, doesn't really do much convincing. The vice presidential nominees can be similarly compared.
I do have to speak about the secondary parties here, too. Jill Stein, of the Green party, has a platform very close to my own belief structure. But I am not voting for her. Why not? Because, as lovely as it would be to have a true multi-party system in this country, we simply don't have one. I will not go so far as to say that a vote for a secondary-party candidate is "throwing away your vote." The only way to do that is not to vote. But I will say that I believe that there will be no meaningful change from casting your vote with a secondary party. "Vote your conscience" is a term I hear a lot to support secondary-party candidates, and I agree. But politics is not about getting everything you want. There's compromise, and that, too, should be part of your conscience. If you can't compromise on anything, you'll lose everything. Is Obama a compromise for me? Technically, yes. He doesn't represent absolutely everything I stand for. I disagree with him on certain points, including education. But compromise is not a bad thing: it is through compromise that we form a nation. We work together for the greater whole. And Obama isn't much of a compromise for me. I'm proud to call him my president. Obama/Biden.
Senator: The incumbent, Maria Cantwell, has been a senator since 2001. She's been fighting for equal pay for women, for pell grants to help struggling students afford college, for jobs to form here in the US. The opposition, Michael Baumgartner, called Maria Cantwell "unqualified" to speak about birth control because she's not married, and doesn't even support abortion in cases of rape. That's the sort of out-of-touch people in Congress right now who are causing a great deal of our problems, focusing on culture war instead of getting our country's jobs moving again. Cantwell's been doing a great job. Let's keep her at it. Maria Cantwell.
Representative District 6: Derek Kilmer has legislative experience, and he's fought for jobs, for education, and for veterans. His opponent has no experience, and doesn't share my own progressive values. Derek Kilmer.
Representative District 1: Because of a combination of gerrymandering and the governor's race, I get to vote for district 1 for a one-month term. We have a tea-party conservative running against a woman who supports Wall Street legislation, the Buffet rule, and laws that will support small businesses. She has experience with small-businesses, having worked with several internet start-up companies. Susan DelBene.
State Offices
Governor: Jay Inslee supports education, public transportation, green jobs, environmentalism, and Wall Street oversight. His voting record on this is clear, after having served as the Representative for District 1 for many years. Rob McKenna pretends to not be partisan, but it's a lie. He's anti-choice, anti-marriage-equality, opposed to public transportation and environmental conservation, and tries to keep unjust tax loopholes open. He wants to slash spending to education and public transportation, destroy teachers' unions, wants to fight to get Obamacare repealed. In addition, for those who remember the nightmare of SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act," McKenna was a huge supporter of SOPA, and spoke out as someone from Washington state -- where Microsoft was -- and was a showcase for why SOPA was actually good; after all, the Washington State Attorney General liked it! McKenna stands for almost nothing I believe in. Inslee is one I agree with quite strongly. Jay Inslee.
Lieutenant Governor: Pay close attention. This doesn't happen often, particularly in the current political climate. I'm about to suggest to my Washington friends to vote for a Republican. Brad Owen, the democrat incumbent, is and has been horrible. He's right-leaning politically, fights against marijuana legalization, and is in general not especially progressive, which are the values I tend to hold. Bill Finkbeiner, the Republican challenger, wants to end partisan bickering -- which is a value I wish more Republicans had right now. He is more progressive than Owen on both abortion law and the environment. I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but in this case, I've got to go with the man whose values are closer to my own. Bill Finkbeiner.
Secretary of State: Both candidates have a reputation for competence. They both have a great deal of knowledge of elections procedures. They both are dedicated public servants. In this regard, whoever wins will be qualified for the position. Kim Wyman's been a county auditor, which is helpful. She wants to "modernize elections" -- which can potentially be very good, but could also be code for bringing in computerized ballot-boxes which have had, shall we say, problems with accuracy. She wants to make archived documents and historical artifacts more accessible; this is a good idea. Kathleen Drew, her opponent, wants to oppose efforts to suppress voting, push for same-day voter registration, and increase dropbox locations. These are all ideas that increase voter participation. I'm for that. She also wants to streamline registration services for corporations, non-profits, and charities, and... oh, look, part of her platform is working to repeal Citizens United. I like this a lot. I'll be honest -- part of my skepticism with Kim Wyman is that "(R)" by her name. But the Republican party has earned that in recent years. That said, if Wyman wins, I won't be heartbroken -- just skeptical, and watching her carefully. But I'm voting for Kathleen Drew.
State Treasurer: Jim McIntire has financial experience, and has been our treasurer for the last four years. He's argued for public funds' security. He tries to keep financial management transparent. He's been doing a great job. Sharon Hanek is a tea-partier, who, like most tea-partiers, apparently believes the government doesn't ever need to tax anything. Her background is "not from academia," but in "advising" people to invest their money wisely (from her own platform in the voter's guide). Not the best person to put in charge of the treasury. This one's a no-brainer. Jim McIntire.
State Auditor: On one hand, you've got a right-leaning Democrat who's moderate on Social issues and not particularly progressive. On the other, you've got a tea-partier who wants to cut all federal funding for education. This is a case of "bleah" vs. "Oh good lord no." I'll take "bleah": Troy Kelley.
Attorney General: Reagan Dunn, like Rob McKenna, pretends to be non-partisan, but is actually hyper-partisan. He's been getting tons of money from Karl Rove's super-PACs. He's got a terrible voting and attendance record for his time in public office. Bob Ferguson, in the other hand, has been hard-working in the King County Council. He fights for criminal justice, government transparency, environmental protection, and support for veterans. He successfully has challenged Tim Eyeman's initiatives, and I suspect he'll do so again given the chance. This choice is clear. Bob Ferguson.
Commissioner of Public Lands: On the one hand, we have Peter Goldmark, who's been doing a great job, doing everything he should be doing. On the other hand, we have a tea-partier. Putting a tea-partier in charge of public lands may be one of the stupidest ideas on this ballot, aside from needing to vote on a minority's civil rights. This one's absolutely a no-brainer. Peter J. Goldmark.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Do I love everything Randy Dorn's done? No. But overall, I've been very pleased with him so far, especially with getting rid of the WASL and taking steps towards replacing it with something actually somewhat sane. (We're not there yet, but I think we might actually be halfway there.) Plus, he's running unopposed. Randy Dorn.
Insurance Commissioner: The incumbent, Mike Kreidler, has cut insurance rates, required that contraceptives be included in prescription drug coverage for women, and helped increase the transparency of the health insurance market. His opponent, John R. Adams, wants to fight against Obamacare and roll back these steps forward we've made. Mike Kreidler.
State Senator District 23: On one hand, we have Christine Rolfes, a woman who has worked to improve our state's oil-spill response system, create maritime jobs, and modernize commercial shellfish enforcement laws. On the other hand, you've got Bret A. Treadwell, who apparently couldn't get something together for the voter's guide. Easy choice. Christine Rolfes.
State Representative Position 1 District 23: Sherry Appleton has experience, and a proven track record for being progressive. Tony Stephens is her opponent, running on a platform of "Status quo is bad and we have to shake up the government." Which... really isn't much of a platform by itself, and sounds a little too tea-party-like for me. Sherry Appleton.
State Representative Position 2 District 23: Drew Hanson has served a partial term, and in that time has introduced bills that would increase jobs, help train firefighters, and allow veterans early-registration for college. His opponent, despite sharing a name with Superman's Pal James Olsen, denies that the Japanese internment was a bad thing, and was actually banned from attending local school functions after being verbally abusive towards the staff. Again, an easy choice. Drew Hanson.
Kitsap County Commissioner District 1: Rob Gelder, the incumbent, has balanced protecting the environment while creating jobs. He's working on a pilot program to help uninsured people get medical help when they need it. His opponent is a vocal conservative whose whole platform is, "More jobs, not more taxes." Bleah. Robert "Rob" Gelder.
Kitsap County Commissioner District 2: The incumbent, Charlotte Garrido, seems to just about live the very progressive values I have. She's worked for affordable housing, environmental sustainability, financial responsibility, and public transit. Her opponent, Linda Simpson, is again running on the "we have to shake up the government," and added in that we need to create more jobs instead of protecting the environment. Charlotte Garrido.
State Supreme Court Positions 2 and 8: Susan Owens and Steve Gonzalez are running unopposed in these two positions, and they're who I voted for in the primary. Happily voting here for Susan Owens and Steve Gonzalez.
Supreme Court Position 9: Sheryl McCloud is non-partisan, fair, and impartial. Her opponent, Richard B. Sanders, is a staunch anti-choice conservative who wants to roll back LGBT rights (claiming that gay people don't need marriage or civil union protections because they have "more sexual partners" than straight people, etc), and is not someone we need in the state's supreme court. Sheryl McCloud.
Washington Court of Appeals Positon 2 District 2 Judge Position 2: Bjorgen has experience, speaks of judges needing compassion and discipline to see how the law affects people, and volunteers for a number of charitable organizations which show his compassion. His opponent, Loginsky, is also rated just as qualified, but lacks the experience. Between the experience and the talk of compassion from the bench, I'm voting Bjorgen.
Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Court 7: There's very little here for this, other than how these two candidates have been rated. Jennifer Forbes: Extremely Well Qualified by a number of agencies. Karen Klein: Well Qualified. I went to their websites; Karen has some good stuff (some great endorsements from groups I agree with, like Q-Law. But Jennifer has more. Both are being endorsed by other people I've voted for (like Gonzalez, above). On this one, both look good, but one looks a little better: Jennifer Forbes.
Kitsap County Public Utility District 1 Commissioner District 3 Lloyd S. Berg is an incumbent running unopposed, and he's got good environmental sense from what I've seen. Lloyd S. Berg.
That's how I've marked my ballot. Agree or disagree, that's fine -- just mark up your ballot with your thoughts and mail it in or drop it off. Let's make our democracy work.