The Newcastle City Council reversed its previous decision Tuesday night and elected to raise the Pride flag at City Hall on a 4-3 vote after hours of public comment and debate.

More on Newcastle flying a Pride flag: Pride flag raised at Newcastle City Hall after City Council reverses decision

During the four-hour city council meeting, Clark, who argued against raising the flag, fired off thoughts regarding the local LGTBQ+ community and reparations for Black people in Washington and California.

“To all of you in the pride movement, you’re very welcome in our city, but be very careful of the hate that’s in your midst,” Clark said. “It’s not coming from outside, it’s coming from within.”

Clark used this topic to talk about the importance of forgiving one’s country, as no country is “without sin.”

“These flaws or sins have historically led to bad outcomes, marginalization and so on. But you got to ask yourself, at what point do you just continue to hold on to these, or do you let go and move forward? Are you going to hold on to something forever?” he said.

Clark referenced the Civil War, which ended 160 years ago, but the state of California is just now establishing a committee to study reparations.

“California was a free state with no slaves and nobody is a slave there today,” Clark said. “But they can’t let go and that causes the division and hate and creates victim groups.”

“How long do we hold on to grievances? A couple of years, a couple of decades, a couple of centuries?” Clark continued. “You want to pass down to your great-, great-grandkids that, ‘Hey, one day, you know, I was called a bad name, you know, 200 years ago, so don’t forget, man. Be a victim.'”

Clark made these comments on the evening of June 18, one day before Juneteenth — a federal holiday in the U.S. to commemorate the ending of slavery.

KIRO host Gee Scott responds to Newcastle mayor

“This isn’t a Newcastle problem, this is a Newcastle mayor problem,” Gee Scott, co-host of “The Gee and Ursula Show,” said on “Seattle’s Morning News.” “It’s not OK what he’s doing. It’s not OK with this environment that is happening. I am not going to laugh this off. This is not funny. It’s not fair to the people who live in Newcastle that this is happening.”

“I also want to say that it’s really important to understand and know that the injustices that have happened here in this country, they have to be known so we can know how to do things going forward in understanding the history of injustice in America. All it does is help folks become more aware of the systemic issues that have plagued this country,” he continued.

Gee cited the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the median wealth of white households was $285,000 while the median wealth of Black households was $44,900 — just 15.8% of the white median. The gap between Black and white households increased by $49,950 between 2019 and 2022.

Reichert on ‘The Gee and Ursula Show:’ Ferguson trying to ‘undermine my reputation’ as honest public servant

“The reason why I am bringing that wealth gap up is so everybody can understand that gap is a result of historical and systemic inequalities that have disproportionately impacted Black communities in terms of access to education, employment opportunities, home ownership, wealth, building assets, real estate, I can go on,” Gee continued. “It is not the tropes in the narratives that some have given, claiming African Americans have been lazy, been wanting handouts, or in the case of the Mayor of Newcastle to say, being a victim.”

“We have to stop empowering and encouraging these words, and I’m going to continue to talk about the Mayor of Newcastle in this way because I think those words are awful,” Gee concluded. “I think what you represent is awful.”

Newcastle mayor ‘doubles down’ on comments

In response to an interview request, Clark reiterated his thoughts to The Seattle Times via email.

“The perpetual victim mentality has to stop somewhere,” Clark told The Seattle Times. “Of course, our history has had some imperfections. We are supposed to learn from them and grow stronger as a people. We are not supposed to linger on past slights forever. That is what is happening now. It’s not healthy and it tears the country apart.”

As for why California was used as an example, he explained the state’s situation regarding reparations “was just something that came to mind because of how ridiculous it is. Juneteenth is just a coincidence.”

Rantz exclusive on Semi Bird: Video shows Bird wearing military badge he didn’t earn

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote, left in place a provision of a 2017 tax law that is expected to generate $340 billion, mainly from the foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations that parked money abroad to shield it from U.S. taxes.

The law, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump, includes a provision that applies to companies that are owned by Americans but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors’ shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, to offset other tax benefits.

More from the high court: Supreme Court, siding with Starbucks, makes it harder for NLRB to win court orders in labor disputes

But the larger significance of the ruling is what it didn’t do. The case attracted outsize attention because some groups allied with the Washington couple who brought the case argued that the challenged provision is similar to a wealth tax, which would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans but to their assets, like stock holdings. Such assets now get taxed only when they are sold.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his majority opinion that “nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity.”

Underscoring the limited nature of the court’s ruling, Kavanaugh said as he read a summary of his opinion in the courtroom, “the precise and very narrow question” of the 2017 law “is the only question we answer.”

The court ruled in the case of Charles and Kathleen Moore, of Redmond. They challenged a $15,000 tax bill based on Charles Moore’s investment in an Indian company, arguing that the tax violates the 16th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the amendment allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans. Moore said in a sworn statement that he never received any money from the company, KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Ltd.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in dissent that the Moores paid taxes on an investment “that never yielded them a penny.” Under the 16th Amendment, Thomas wrote, the only income that can be taxed is “income realized by the taxpayer.”

A ruling for the Moores could have called into question other provisions of the tax code and threatened losses to the U.S. Treasury of several trillion dollars, Kavanaugh noted, echoing the argument made by the Biden administration.

Dave Ross on Supreme Court ruling against pro-life challenge: What’s next for the Christian Nationalists?

The case also had kicked up ethical concerns and raised questions about the story the Moores’ lawyers told in court filings. Justice Samuel Alito rejected calls from Senate Democrats to step away from the case because of his ties to David Rivkin, a lawyer who is representing the Moores.

Alito voted with the majority, but did not join Kavanaugh’s opinion. Instead, he joined a separate opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett wrote that the issues in the case are more complicated than Kavanaugh suggests.

Public documents show that Charles Moore’s involvement with the company, including serving as a director for five years, is far more extensive than court filings indicate.

The case is Moore v. U.S., 22-800.

Deputy Mayor Pratima Lakhotia flipped her vote to be in favor with the flag raising, after voting against it at the June 4 City Council meeting. The motion to fly the flag failed at that meeting.

“As a city, we decided not to do any proclamations this year because we did not want to leave out any minority groups. Our city is made up of many minority groups. We wanted everyone to feel equal,” Lakhotia said, according to KIRO 7. “A majority of Newcastle wanted this and I think as a council member, it’s my duty to, you know, respect the majority.”

For the last four years, the City of Newcastle has joined with cities across the state of Washington to hang a Pride flag for the month of June.

More on Pride in June: Celebrate Seattle’s 50th Pride anniversary!

“It’s visibility, it’s pride, it’s a community. It’s the LGBT+ community, it’s a symbol of love,” Corrinalyn Guyette, president of the Eastside Pride Pacific Northwest, said, according to KIRO 7.

Supporters’ rally meets opposition

On Tuesday, dozens of members of the LGBTQ+ community rallied at Lake Boren Park to make their voices heard.

“When they’re not willing to raise that flag, it’s pretty much shutting out an entire community and we don’t feel supported,” Guyette said.

The crowds marched to Newcastle City Hall to speak out at the City Council meeting.

They were met with church groups waving the American flag.

“We have one flag and the other side wants equality and that’s what this flag represents,” resident Lance Davis said.

Crowds packed into the meeting, filling the room to its maximum capacity. The crowd even flowed into the hallways.

Several people made it clear they were in support of the council’s original decision not to raise the flag.

“A section of society doesn’t represent everybody. I like to be supportive of that which unites, rather than that which divides,” resident David Seely said.

‘If we raise one flag, we got to raise everybody’s flag’

On June 4, The Newcastle City Council voted 4-3 against raising the Pride flag over City Hall in support of the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month.

“If we raise one flag, we got to raise everybody’s flag,” Newcastle Mayor Robert Clark said during the City Council meeting at that time. “Do you want to Hamas flag flying over the city of Newcastle? Or a MAGA flag or a Trump flag? How about an Antifa flag? We’re not going there folks, not while I’m the mayor.”

Previous coverage: Newcastle not raising Pride flag over City Hall

The mayor followed up his comments made at the meeting with a prepared statement obtained by KIRO 7.

“If people want to celebrate pride month in their own way, I will cheer them on,” Clark wrote. “I will not, however, tell the rest of the community that they also must cheer them on and the government raising the flag would say that. I am aware that many people cannot (or will not) agree with me, but I am firm in my beliefs.”

Council member Paul Carbonneau, who proposed the Pride proclamation, said previously he didn’t rest easy after that earlier city event.

“I did not sleep very well the night after that council meeting,” Carboneau said, according to KIRO 7.

Carbonneau says despite his disappointment in those comments, he still believes that Newcastle is an inclusive community and wants to invite the community to a local Pride event on June 18th.

“We accept you. We love you for just the way you are,” Carbonneau said. “Just because we had elected leaders who said those things and decided not to raise the pride flag, that’s not how this community necessarily feels about that.”

Seattle has been raising the Pride flag over City Hall for the last 12 years. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell led the flag raising during an event on June 7.

Last year, Lake Stevens made a similar decision to the initial decision made in Newcastle. Mayor Brett Gailey failed to sign a proclamation declaring June as Pride Month in 2023, citing personal beliefs. He signed it during the first years of his term.

Contributing: Samantha Lomibao and Gwen Baumgarder, KIRO 7; Steve Coogan and Frank Sumrall, MyNorthwest

Rantz Exclusive: Former Seattle police Chief Adrian Diaz announces he’s gay

Diaz told Rantz he became self-aware of his true sexual orientation about four years ago, roughly at the time he was appointed interim police chief by then-Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, who has been very public about being gay for decades. There is no evidence that Diaz told Durkan about his thoughts on his sexuality at the time. Diaz became interim chief on August 11, 2020, following the sudden retirement of Chief Carmen Best. Diaz was named permanent chief by Harrell 25 months later in September 2022.

The 27-year veteran of the department stepped down as chief on May 30 following what the mayor described as a mutual agreement between the two. Harrell repeated himself several times when reporters asked if there was one event that “broke the camel’s back” leading to Diaz’s removal from his post.

“There seems to be this concern that there was an epiphany, or an incident occurred; it just wasn’t the case,” Harrell said on May 30 with Diaz standing behind him during a press conference. “This is just in the best interest of the city, and the interests of the city transcend everything else.”

Past coverage: Diaz to depart as SPD chief; Interim Sue Rahr to focus on cultural change

During Diaz’s interview with Rantz, he said it was a mutual decision with the mayor to step aside, and he told the mayor in February about his realization that he was gay.

“I had a good conversation with the mayor about four months ago, and he was very supportive. I was very appreciative of it,” Diaz said.

He claimed the mayor told him to “come out when you are ready; it should be your timeline.”

“I was very appreciative of that support,” Diaz said.

However, later in the interview, Diaz was asked by Rantz if anyone in the Harrell administration suggested he should not come out.

“That will be something that will be discussed at a later time,” he said.

Timeline of Diaz’s final moments as chief before his announcement

Between comments made by Harrell during the May 30 announcement and Diaz’s description of his final months as chief, a timeline can be developed that could shed light on the timing of Harrell’s decision to get Diaz to step down as chief and Diaz’s announcement that he was gay during a tumultuous time at SPD that left six people suing Diaz for various reasons.

In November 2023, SPD detective Denise “Cookie” Bouldin, who is Black, filed a lawsuit alleging years of discrimination by SPD management. Diaz was the chief during the latter part of her current 43-year career at the department. Two months later, Captain Deanna Nollette filed a lawsuit against the city specifically naming Diaz’s alleged history of misogyny that held back women from leadership positions. Nollette had been an assistant chief under Chief Best but was demoted to captain by Diaz.

Report: Seattle mayor hires firm to probe SPD sexual harassment, discrimination claims

A month later, the Seattle Times published a story about a then-unreleased report by a Washington State University researcher and professor who spent three days in August 2023 interviewing members of the department, primarily women, about discrimination. The report had been completed and submitted to SPD in September 2023. The Times article forced SPD to release the report publicly on February 9. (A PDF of that report can be viewed here.)

The report describes incidents of alleged sexual harassment in the department and a culture discouraging women from advancing into leadership roles. It was around this time that Diaz said he told Harrell about his sexual orientation.

One former SPD ranking officer who did not want to be identified told me Diaz is “lying about being gay in order to protect himself in these lawsuits.” In late April, four female members of the department filed a tort claim with the city alleging Diaz engaged in predatory and discriminatory behavior. A few days later, Mayor Harrell hired an independent investigator to explore the tort allegations and matters involving the chief.

Then another lawsuit claiming discrimination was filed by a 30-year veteran of the department, Eric Greening, who is Black. The lawsuit alleges Diaz discriminated against female and BIPOC officers. Greening was a finalist with Diaz for chief in 2022. Diaz demoted Greening from assistant chief to captain in July 2023.

It was that same week when Harrell reached out to former King County Sheriff Sue Rahr to see if she was interested in being interim chief, as soon as Chief Diaz was to step down. Diaz did just that a week later, on May 30.

The comments Harrell made on that day when pressed by reporters about the timing of the decision to ask Diaz to step down may have new meaning in light of Diaz’s remarks in the Rantz interview. Harrell made the decision to let Diaz go before his independent investigator returned with their conclusions.

“We concluded as an executive team, and I don’t make these decisions in a vacuum; we do not need to wait for the termination of an investigation,” Harrell said on May 30. “We did not need to evaluate that.”

“I have a sense of urgency in creating the safe city that I demand we have; that’s why we didn’t wait,” Harrell added.

Diaz is one of 32 candidates to apply to be chief of Police for Austin, Texas, according to a report published Tuesday in the Austin American-Statesman. Another candidate is Kevin Hall, the assistant police chief of Tucson Arizona who was a finalist for Seattle police chief in 2022 along with Eric Greening. Diaz got the Seattle job.

In light of new information provided by the Diaz interview, I asked the mayor’s office if Diaz’s February conversation with the mayor had any bearing on asking Diaz to step down and the legal complications that could be represented in a sexual harassment case. We are waiting for an answer from the mayor’s office.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

The image is the latest evidence exclusively reported by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH to detail what led to a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMR) for committing fraud against the U.S. Army and for wearing badges and awards Bird did not earn. The Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) is now under pressure to address the fraud, with a Tuesday night Executive Board meeting scheduled to discuss the issue.

At the time of the reprimand, Bird took responsibility for all the findings in the GOMR. But after the GOMR was reported, Bird claimed that allegations made against him at the time were proven false. He said the GOMR was placed in a restricted file and not supposed to be made public, claiming it was illegally obtained. This is disputed by three soldiers directly involved in the research into what led to Bird’s GOMR.

Despite repeated promises over the course of weeks, Bird hasn’t released any documentation to support his assertions. Instead, he’s accused “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH of working for “the establishment” to bring down his campaign and offered irrelevant documents and statements that do not dispute the original reporting.

According to multiple sources and his personnel files, Bird claimed to have earned the Special Operations Diver Badge, even though he never trained for it.

For the last month, Bird claimed he never said he earned the badge and never wore it. Video from 2006 shows otherwise. pic.twitter.com/K8pLPf8ASY

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) June 19, 2024

Jason Rantz Exclusive: Former Seattle police Chief Adrian Diaz announces he’s gay

Did Semi Bird wear a badge he did not earn?

Bird was honored at a 2006 ceremony in Kennewick where he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with Valor. He was dressed in full uniform for the event. The video was captured for an unidentified news report, obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

In the video, Bird wore the Special Operations Combat Diver Badge on the left side of his uniform coat. The badge was identified by two independent military experts for “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. Screenshots of the video are provided in this story.

Bird wore the Special Operations Combat Diver Badge on the left side of his uniform coat. (Photo courtesy of the Unidentified Eastern WA news report, provided by the Washington National Guard)

The only way to earn this badge is by completing the U.S. Army Special Forces Combat Diver Qualification Course in Key West, Florida. Bird never trained in Key West for this course.

The Semi Bird reprimand

While serving in the National Guard, the “Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH exclusively revealed that Bird received a GOMR from then-Brigadier General Hector Pagan in 2009.

Among the general’s many outlined findings, Pagan said that Bird “wore awards and badges that you had not earned.”

The findings came after Bird submitted falsified documents as part of a Warrant Officer packet, which would have led to a promotion had his application been accepted and completed the program. Bird responded to the GOMOR, writing, “My actions constitute nothing less than a fraud against the United States Army plain and simple.”

Expert weighs in

Charles Ritter is an active duty United States Army Special Forces soldier serving as the Deputy Commandant of the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. He reviewed Bird’s uniform for “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH and said he has no doubts: Bird is wearing the Special Forces Combat Diver Badge.

“That’s the only badge that looks like that, with the scuba mask … it’s got the sharks around it, you get the two knives … there’s no other badge that even resembles that. There’s no way that can be mistaken,” he said.

At the time, the Tri-City Herald published a photo from the ceremony. Special Forces soldiers saw the photo and said it bothered them because they knew he wasn’t supposed to wear it, according to multiple military sources.

The photo is briefly featured in a Semi Bird campaign video where he explains the court martial he received for assaulting a sergeant when he was in the Marines. It was this campaign video that allowed “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH to track down footage of the ceremony.

Blue Infantry Cord

Ritter, along with a Senior NCO who was personally involved in researching Bird’s record, noted it wasn’t just a Special Forces Combat Diver Badge being worn inappropriately.

Bird also wore a Blue Infantry Cord and Infantry Disc at the ceremony. Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) do not typically qualify to wear either, even if they have an infantry background. They wear their own distinctive insignia and accoutrements that reflect their Special Forces affiliation, rather than infantry.

Bird said he became a Special Forces soldier post-9/11. Ritter said that when you become a Special Forces soldier you remove the Blue Infantry Cord and “put it on your mantle.”

“It’s not something you can wear as a Special Forces soldier unless somehow you … have your (Special Forces) tab revoked,” Ritter said.

More from Jason Rantz: After pushing to decriminalize, Bob Ferguson says he wants to tackle drug OD crisis

Did Bird’s records show badges or awards he had not earned?

In an interview with “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, Bird said he never claimed to have trained at the Key West facility. He further said that “Every single one of my awards has been verified. So My DD-214, which I can submit to you, so that you have it, is fully accurate, and it has been verified at my last unit.” (A DD-214 is a document issued by the U.S. Department of Defense that certifies a service member’s retirement, separation, or discharge from active duty and includes details about their service, including assignments, training, and awards.)

More recently, Bird claimed on his June 17 podcast “Common Sense,” that his personnel file is “proof that there is no mishaps of any of my awards, no matter what people had said, or badges.”

It is true that what appears to be Bird’s last DD-214 does not include awards or badges he did not earn. But that is likely because it was a corrected DD-214, a result of the GOMR. Prior to the correction, Bird listed the Special Operations Divers Badge on two separate DD-214 forms and a DA 2-1 form (an additional personnel file).

During the podcast, after previously indicating there was ever even a question as to whether or not he was wearing the Special Operations Diver Badge, Bird read a statement from a supposed character witness (who knew Bird years after the reprimand) in which he acknowledges there were reports he was erroneously wearing it.

Bird had to take a new Department of Army photo post-GOMR. (Photo courtesy of the Unidentified Eastern WA news report, provided by the Washington National Guard)

In the end, Bird had to take a new Department of Army photo post-GOMR. In it, he removed German Jump Wings, an oak leaf cluster on his Army Commendation Medal, a star device on his National Defense Service Medal, and a Scuba medal (which he, according to multiple sources, spoke of interchangeably with the Special Operations Diver Badge).

The forms can be viewed as a PDF here.

Afghanistan Campaign Medal and Combat Infantryman Badge

Bird’s record also listed an Afghanistan Campaign Medal before it was removed in his final DD-214. But he never served in Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom.

Bird served in the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Sinai Peninsula at the time in direct support of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), an international peacekeeping force overseeing the terms of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. His role was not for combat duty in Afghanistan.

A solider earns the Afghanistan Campaign Medal for service performed in Afghanistan or its airspace, or in direct support of operations in Afghanistan. Personnel who serve outside of the designated area, but in direct support of the operation, may also qualify. This would require specific authorization from the Secretary of Defense. A Senior NCO involved in researching Bird’s record, speaking exclusively to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, said Bird wore that medal when he did not earn it.

Bird’s records also showed a memo by a training instructor awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) first award from Special Forces Training Group at Fort Bragg, NC, while he was a student in the Special Forces Qualification Course. An award like this offered by a training instructor is unusual.

Gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird denied wearing a Special Operations Combat Diver Badge, that he didn’t earn. Video shows he did. (Photo courtesy of the Unidentified Eastern WA news report, provided by the Washington National Guard)

Retired Special Forces (SF) Master Sergeant Derek Elsberry, a veteran with 26 years of military service, was also one of the soldiers who reviewed Bird. He exclusively told “The Jason Rantz Show” that Bird was not authorized for the CIB because “he wasn’t an infantryman, and wasn’t in combat in Afghanistan.”

Bird denies wrongdoing

Bird has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, insisting that the GOMR is being misrepresented. Instead, he focuses on his claim that it was illegally obtained either by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH or a source. But the senior NCO said he was able to confirm that both the GOMR and Bird’s response were in the permanent file in 2010, not a restricted file (at least at the time it was written). Both documents were still in the permanent file in 2011 when they were saved.

“This reprimand was placed in his permanent record and not the local file, or a restricted file,” he said.

It’s possible the GOMR was placed in a restricted file at some point, but Bird has not been able to provide any documentation to back his assertions.

Bird complained that “what they accused me of is the same thing as sexual assault, or doing an unspeakable, it’s despicable. It’s disgusting.”

Neither Bird nor his campaign spokesperson responded to a request for comment.

Listen to “The Jason Rantz Show” on weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram, and  Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz

The goal of the diversion program would be to save the public money and lower caseloads for legal staff, according to a statement from Neatherlin. Offenses include squatting, being intoxicated in public, opening using illegal substances, defecating in streets, stripping or having sex in public, malicious mischief, theft, accusing people and violating property rights, as stated by Mason WebTV.

“Our situations on the street have gotten much worse, especially in small rural towns,” Neatherline told KIRO Newsradio on Tuesday.

Thurston County Sheriff: Father shoots rideshare driver sexually assaulting his daughter

The options for misdemeanor offenders, according to Neatherlin, would be:

1. Plead guilty to a violation and pay $1,000 with at least 40 hours of community service.
2. Immediately check themselves into a self-funded treatment facility.
3. Voluntarily leave Mason County without returning for 180 days. If an offender returned, they would be prosecuted. If they did not return, the case would be dismissed.

For a gross misdemeanor, the options would be:

1. Plead guilty to the violating and pay between $1,000 to $5,000, along with doing community service.
2. Immediately check themselves into a self-funded treatment facility.
3. Voluntarily leave Mason County for an entire year.

“The options would be, do the time, pay the fine, get rehab or maybe if it’s a low enough crime, leave,” Neatherlin explained to KIRO Newsradio.

He said the Mason Transit Authority already offers free bus rides for those leaving the county.

“Maybe we contract for better transportation but either way, this is cheaper than $300+ a day to hold them let alone pay to prosecute and defend them,” Neatherlin said in his statement.

He added that the county will provide a list of services and locations offered in surrounding counties but noted that relocation may not be ideal for Mason County’s neighbors.

“I believe that when relocated, they will establish new friends, new connections, new providers and, yes, new suppliers of their drug of choice,” Neatherlin continued in his statement. “I know this does not fix the person, but can we be expected to do that? Surrounding counties may not appreciate it, but I represent the people of Mason County. Protecting us must be my top priority.”

Neatherlin bristled at people calling this “exile.”

“It’s a choice that they can choose or they can go through the whole process and spend a year in jail,” he told KIRO Newsradio.

Some critics said this kind of plan just moves the problem elsewhere without addressing the root cause, to which Neatherlin said he can’t force someone to change but at least his citizens would be safe.

“It’s always going to be up to the individual,” he said. “People will say ‘Why don’t you put them through a different type of rehab?’ First of all, they have to want to, it doesn’t work if they don’t want to. No matter how much money you wanna throw at it.”

More politics: King County to replace correctional facility with modern jail, behavioral health center

In his statement, Neatherlin outlined why he and Blush, with the help of the sheriff’s department, public defenders, attorneys and judges came to the idea in the first place.

“This state repeatedly strips the consequences or makes it impossible to enforce laws needed to make working or living in our community safe,” Neatherlin said. “Things are about to get worse. New restrictions on public defenders’ caseloads will force the release of criminals due to an inability to provide public defenders.”

He added the program will hopefully provide new options and make a “real and effective legal difference.”

“This is a work in progress, not perfect, but we must start somewhere,” he stated.

Neatherliln told KIRO Newsradio the proposal is still being refined and has yet to be presented to the council.

Contributing: Charlie Harger, KIRO Newsradio and Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest

Julia Dallas is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read her stories here. Follow Julia on X, formerly known as Twitter, here and email her here.

It highlights King County Executive Dow Constantine’s urgent request for a new facility that prioritizes efficiency, safety and the treatment of behavioral health issues.

One of the major hurdles in the project is funding. The report stated preliminary cost estimates for a new facility exceed $1 billion. King County will likely need voter-approved bonds or levy lifts to finance the project. However, funding the preliminary design and siting work required for a ballot measure poses an additional challenge, given the financial constraints of the county’s general fund.

Other news: Designs unveiled for new I-5 bridge between Washington, Oregon

New King County jail would focus on behavioral health treatments

In the report, Constantine identified key features for a new facility, though detailed planning has yet to commence. The envisioned facility would house fewer beds, emphasizing diversion and behavioral health treatment. It would include a co-located behavioral health facility and provide appropriate medical and psychological care, preferably near Harborview Medical Center.

It would also accommodate all inmate classifications, including high-security, and maintain proximity to the King County Courthouse for in-custody court appearances, along with incorporating modern design standards for efficiency and improved environments for inmates and staff. Lastly, it would offer 24/7 intake, transfer, and release facilities.

The location of the current KCCF is also valuable, with potential for generating significant revenue through sale or lease, which could fund parts of the new facility.

The replacement of KCCF is part of a broader County Civic Campus Plan, which aims to address aging infrastructure, reduce energy use and integrate housing and retail spaces. Listening sessions with stakeholders have suggested that the new facility should have a therapeutic focus, better family meeting spaces and flexible design for future needs. The planning team aims to complete this phase by summer, with proposals expected in the 2025 budget.

More local news: Seattle City Council takes steps to expand use of automated license plate readers

King County Correctional Facility was outdated when it opened

The KCCF, which opened in 1986, was outdated from the start according to Constantine, requiring high staffing ratios and plagued by construction and security system issues. Today, it houses 744 individuals, many with medical and psychological needs, and receives 85% of the county’s bookings due to its central location in downtown Seattle and broader operating hours compared to the Maleng Regional Justice Center (MRJC). The county does not intend to close the MRJC located in Kent.

Despite significant investments in recent years, the report stated facility remains inefficient and ill-suited for modern correctional needs. As the population it serves has shifted to include more individuals with behavioral health issues, the need for a facility that can provide adequate treatment has become apparent.

Constantine has pushed back the closure of the Patricia H. Clark Children and Family Justice Center (CCFJC) to 2028.  The original goal to close the juvenile detention facility was 2024. The CCFJC opened in 2020 at a cost of $242 million and features a more rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice, containing modern classrooms, a library, a gym and a medical clinic along with juvenile courtrooms.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

There have been 21 reported shootings over the last six days, just Rahr’s second week on the job.

“The first big most important step is we need to get a larger pool of applicants,” Rahr said on “The Gee and Ursula Show” on KIRO 97.3 FM. “If we want to improve diversity, if we want to have more choices of who we choose to put in a uniform, we need to have a bigger group to select from. I am focused on improving and expanding our recruiting and hiring. We have some very tangible steps in mind.”

‘SPD is dying’: What Seattle police officers are saying during exit interviews

Among the steps, Rahr mentioned was lobbying the Civil Service Commission to change the testing for recruitment in order to “dramatically increase” the size of the police force’s applicant pool. Streamlining the hiring and onboarding processes, removing the “many” barriers blocking quality candidates and staffing the field training program are other immediate goals for Rahr and her team.

“When we make these changes, we’re going to have a deluge of new applicants and we have to be ready to bring them on board,” Rahr added.

One of the violent instances that occurred in Seattle over the past week was the shooting and killing of 17-year-old Garfield High School student Amarr Murphy-Paine. The high school canceled classes for two days, increased its police presence when it reopened and became a hub for multiple rallies led by parents and students. The suspect in the shooting has yet to be caught, as of this reporting.

More on the Garfield High School shooting: Teen killed in Garfield High School shooting in Seattle; classes canceled

“We have just a mountain of digital information from cell phone cameras and all other kinds of cameras that are around the community,” Rahr said. “Lots of people have pieces of information. Lots of people are posting things on social media. What people are not doing is calling our tip line, so we can’t take a piece of information that is posted online when we can’t go to the original source to validate and verify whether that information is accurate or not.”

“Are you confident that you will get the suspect in this case?” Gee Scott, co-host of “The Gee and Ursula Show,” asked Rahr.

“Yes,” she answered.

The removal of school resource officers

School resource officers were active and apparent on campuses across the city until the summer of 2020 — when the Seattle School Board canceled the job during the backlash against policing after George Floyd’s murder. Now, after a string of violent crimes on campuses with no school resource officers in sight, leadership among the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the city are considering bringing them back.

“I 100% stand on that there is a great benefit to having police officers in the schools, but their role has to be crystal clear,” Rahr said. “Their role should not be, ‘We are we’re extra school security, we’re here for discipline.’ That should not be the role of the police officer. The greatest benefit of having resource officers in the schools with carefully designed roles and responsibilities is to build relationships.”

Jason Rantz on the end of school resource officers in Seattle: Latest Seattle school shooting again shows Democrats to blame

More than one in 10 schools with a regular police presence removed officers from facilities since 2020, according to new federal data. Before 2020, 58% of schools, including 72% of high schools, had resource officers. That number was just 36% by 2004.

“I think in the last five years, the idea of police in schools has been politicized,” Rahr said. “I know there are bad stories out there about school resource officers being misused. I would like to start a dialogue with the Seattle Public Schools and say, ‘Can we please hit the reset button?'”

“Rahr, I would like to see you put that on a t-shirt,” Gee said. “The next time I see you at a press conference, I want to read on your shirt, ‘Hit the reset button.’ Reset Seattle. That is the message to everybody.”

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

The City Council initially approved limited use of ALPRs in 2021 for 11 SPD vehicles, leading to the recovery of 622 stolen vehicles, according to the SPD. The trade-offs between privacy, data security, and retention versus SPD’s request to hold data longer to help solve crimes were hotly debated for nearly 90 minutes at Tuesday’s Public Safety Committee meeting.

Council Bill 120778, which authorizes the expansion of ALPRs and sets restrictions regarding who has access to the collected data, was under scrutiny. Former King County Superior Court Judge and current council member Cathy Moore expressed deep concerns about the public’s ability to use the state’s Public Records Act to request potentially hundreds of thousands of scans performed by ALPRs.

“The main issue here is how do we protect individuals who are coming to the state of Washington to access reproductive care or gender-affirming care?” Moore asked. “How do we protect them from being criminalized and prosecuted in non-protected states?”

More from Matt Markovich: Seattle scraps ShotSpotter plans; advances surveillance, license plate readers

Under the current proposal, data not tied to an active investigation would be retained for 90 days. For active investigations, the data would be retained indefinitely. Data collected by ALPR technology is considered public record under Washington State’s Public Records Act and can be requested by the public. Additionally, there are concerns about external entities attempting to compel data disclosure from the third-party vendors managing the data.

Public comments earlier in the meeting underscored these issues, reflecting a community divided on balancing public safety and privacy rights. Moore prefers data not involved in an investigation be retained for only 48 hours, reducing the likelihood of disclosure requests from the public or other states.

SPD official speaks out at the meeting

Brian Maxey, Chief Operating Officer for SPD, stated a 48-hour retention period would severely limit the potential for investigating other crimes.

“We know that most stolen vehicles these days are not stolen for joyriding or some random purpose. They are stolen specifically to use in other crimes,” Maxey told the City Council. “If we have a hit on a vehicle that is not on our list but we now know was involved in a crime, having that 90-day buffer lets us look back in time to see what other crimes that car was associated with.”

Currently, there are 9,000 stolen vehicles in Seattle that have not been recovered, Maxey noted. The buffer will help solve these crimes and other cases, including missing persons.

“This technology just tells you where a car has been. It does not tell you who was driving it or what happened when the person exited that vehicle. It simply provides the location of a vehicle,” Maxey said.

Affecting taxpayers: Seattle homeowners face sticker shock with new levies

The committee approved an amendment Moore offered, solidifying SPD’s current practice of not publicly disclosing ALPR data that links specific license plates to particular times, dates, and locations. This non-disclosure practice would remain in effect unless altered by court order or changes in applicable law. Should such changes occur, the amendment mandates that SPD promptly notify the City Council.

However, Moore abstained from the vote for final passage, stating she plans to introduce new legislation that caps retention at 48 hours for data not involved with an active SPD case. The City Council’s decision on this ordinance will have significant implications for both law enforcement capabilities and civil liberties in Seattle.

The Committee passed the expansion 4-0 with Moore abstaining. A full Seattle City Council is expected next week.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

The order fills a loophole in state statute that did not require hospitals, clinics, and the doctors who work at them to perform an “emergency abortion” should a woman need one.

“The statute unfortunately does not have exact clarity that includes abortion services, so this will clarify that the statute specifically includes abortion services,” Inslee said.

Washington legalized abortion in 1970 and has a long history of legal protections for women who want one and the doctors who perform them. State law already requires hospitals in Washington to provide essential emergency health care based on nationally recognized standards, including emergency abortion care.

When asked if the order was a solution in search of a problem, Inslee said, “There are certain hospitals that have taken provisions to reduce access to services. We think this will reduce those opportunities to deny those services.”

The Washington State Hospital Association objected, writing in response to Inslee’s order, “There is no evidence that Washington hospitals are not providing appropriate emergency care.”

“Hospitals’ commitment to emergency care includes a commitment to providing a whole host of services to which some people might apply a moral character,” WSHA CEO Cassie Sauer said in response to Inslee’s order. “We disagree with any limitations on hospital provision of emergency services.”

New study: Washington has become ‘safe haven for people seeking abortions’

Why Inslee thinks addressing Washington abortion care needs to happen now

Inslee’s directive mandates the Department of Health to issue policy guidance clarifying hospitals’ legal obligations, reaffirming that state law remains unaffected by potential Supreme Court rulings.

The executive order comes as the nation nears the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. (A PDF of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision can be seen here.) The timing is critical, as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, cases that could allow politicians to criminalize emergency room doctors for performing emergency abortions.

“This is a somewhat preventive measure against the Supreme Court decision. That’s why we’re taking it today and we’re not waiting because this could be taken away at any day,” Inslee said.

More from Matt Markovich: Judge tosses lawsuit aimed at removing state’s gender-affirming care for youth

Emergency abortion care is sometimes necessary when a patient is experiencing a medical emergency. The Supreme Court ruling could challenge the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law mandating that hospitals provide necessary emergency treatment to all patients, including abortion care.

Inslee said the order ensures abortions for residents of Washington and anyone out of state who needs one when it’s a matter of life or death. He said he doesn’t expect a legal challenge if a situation arises where a doctor or hospital refuses to perform an abortion for religious reasons.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

“If we raise one flag, we got to raise everybody’s flag,” Newcastle Mayor Robert Clark said during the City Council meeting. “Do you want to Hamas flag flying over the city of Newcastle? Or a MAGA flag or a Trump flag? How about an Antifa flag? We’re not going there folks, not while I’m the mayor.”

More on Pride Month: Celebrate Seattle’s 50th Pride anniversary!

The mayor followed up his comments made at the meeting with a prepared statement obtained by KIRO 7.

“If people want to celebrate pride month in their own way, I will cheer them on,” Clark wrote. “I will not, however, tell the rest of the community that they also must cheer them on and the government raising the flag would say that. I am aware that many people cannot (or will not) agree with me, but I am firm in my beliefs.”

Newcastle joined many other Washington cities in raising a Pride flag for the month of June over the past four years, but that newfound tradition ends here.

Seattle has been raising the Pride flag over its city hall for the last 12 years.

“I did not sleep very well the night after that council meeting,” Newcastle Council member Paul Carboneau said, according to KIRO 7. Carboneau proposed the proclamation to raise the flag to the council.

Last year, Lake Stevens made a similar decision. Lake Stevens Mayor Brett Gailey failed to sign a proclamation declaring June as Pride Month last year, citing personal beliefs. He signed it during the first years of his term.

More on Lake Stevens’ Pride decision: Lake Stevens mayor defends decision to not declare June as Pride Month

A community pride event is scheduled for 5 p.m. at Lake Boren Park in Newcastle Tuesday, June 18, according to FOX 13.

Contributing: KIRO 7

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

The test vote won a 51-39 majority, but that was well short of the 60 votes to move ahead on the legislation.

It came as the Senate has abandoned hopes of doing serious bipartisan legislation before the election. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Democrats are trying to instead spotlight issues they believe can help them win the presidency and keep the Senate in November. A similar vote on ensuring nationwide access to in vitro fertilization is expected next week.

That bill is expected to similarly stall in the Senate, where Democrats need 60 votes to move forward on legislation. Schumer said Tuesday that Democrats will “put reproductive freedoms front and center before this chamber, so that the American people can see for themselves who will stand up to defend their fundamental liberties.”

The effort comes as Democrats worry that reproductive rights will be further threatened after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion two years ago and as they continue to see that access as one of their most potent election-year issues. President Joe Biden’s campaign has embraced reproductive rights as a key to winning undecided voters, especially women.

“Contraception is health care, essential health care, that millions of people rely on,” said Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat. She said the court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade “foretold more chaos to come.”

President Joe Biden called the Republican opposition to the bill “unacceptable.”

“We will continue to urge Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law and safeguard the right to contraception once and for all,” Biden said.

More from the nation’s capital: Biden rolls out border asylum restrictions; Washington officials react

Washington’s senators react to the contraception access bill’s failure

According to a statement from her office Wednesday, Washington Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray gave a speech on the Senate floor in Washington, D.C., before the Senate’s vote on the Right to Contraception Act.

“As you just heard today, every senator will be confronted with a very simple question: should Americans have the right to contraception? The right to birth control, IUDs, Plan B? That really should not be a hard question—in fact, most Americans thought this matter was settled!” Murray said on the floor, her office said. “The vast majority of the American people, our constituents, support this right, so this should be an easy vote. This bill should pass with flying colors.”

Today, every Senator will be confronted with a very simple question: should Americans have the right to contraception?

This should be an easy vote—and yet, the anti-abortion movement’s escalating attacks on birth control have not only made this necessary, but urgent. pic.twitter.com/NJ1Fq7d6Hj

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) June 5, 2024

Murray went on to call out one of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court for his support of a previous case and House Republicans for the legislation being drawn up in that chamber.

“Republicans have been making clear a bill like this is not only necessary, but it is urgent,” Murray said. “Because, not only has Justice Thomas signaled an interest in reconsidering Griswold, not only have senators said Griswold was ‘unsound,’ but there are Republican bills — right now, with large GOP support — that would severely undercut the right to birth control. (That includes) the Life at Conception Act, which is supported by more than half of the Republicans in the House—including the Speaker.”

Murray went on to talk about the purpose of this bill, which is about much more than messaging.

“This is more than a messaging bill—it is a meaningful way to protect a really fundamental right,” Murray continued, according to her office. “Democrats are going to keep pushing, full force, to hold Republicans accountable for their extreme policies and the harm they are causing.”

Cantwell cites UW Medicine abortion study

Washington Democratic U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, according to a statement released by her office Wednesday afternoon, also spoke on the Senate floor before the vote on the contraception bill. Cantwell, a cosponsor of the bill, called out recent political actions in Idaho and Virginia.

“In Idaho recently, they banned abortion. Now several of the state’s colleges have banned their staff from even speaking to students about contraception. Imagine college students in the dark about something as basic as a health care service,” Cantwell said during her floor speech, her office reported. “In Virginia, people still have abortion rights, but the governor chose to veto a bill to protect and expand birth control access just hours before the deadline. So yes — they’re not done.”

Cantwell went on to discuss a new UW Medicine study revealing that since the 2022 Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the state of Washington has seen a 50% increase in out-of-state patients seeking abortions.

“The study also found that all patients in Washington – regardless of whether they’re traveling in from anti-choice states — are getting abortions approximately one week later, compared to before the (Dobbs) decision overturned the protections established by Roe v. Wade,” Cantwell noted her speech, according to her office. “If you think about it, if you’ve seen a 50% increase in out-of-state patients, that means you’re seeing more patients. What is the effect of seeing more patients?”

Cantwell asked that since people are going to Washington for abortions, wouldn’t they come for contraception too?

“Washington saw the largest increase in patients from those states who had banned abortion states like Texas and Idaho, Louisiana, and Florida,” Sen. Cantwell continued. “Now imagine if they carry this further and ban contraception too. Our state doesn’t want to be impacted in the delivery of care. It wants people to be able to see a physician when they need to see a physician, get the care when they need to get the care.”

Weighing in: Washington Republicans, Democrats react to Trump’s guilty verdict

Republicans respond to the bill and its failure

Minority Republicans have scoffed at the votes, saying the political messaging votes were unserious distractions from legislation they would like to vote on. “I expect we will see a lot more show votes this summer,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, on Tuesday.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, one of two Republicans to vote with Democrats to move forward on the bill, said Monday that she would want the legislation to be amended to include more religious liberty protections. “It is clearly a messaging attempt and not a serious attempt in itself,” she said.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Collins supports abortion rights, also voted to move forward on the legislation.

Many Republicans who voted against consideration of the bill said they support access to contraception but believe the legislation is unnecessary.

“The Democrats are using their power to push an alarmist and false narrative that there is a problem accessing contraception,” said Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee.

Democrats have moved to protect various rights in the wake of the Roe decision, particularly after Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion that suggested the court also reconsider previous opinions that prohibited bans on contraceptives, sodomy and same-sex marriage.

But the Senate push on reproductive access this year differs from bipartisan legislation passed in 2022 that would protect same-sex marriage. A vote on that bill was delayed until after that year’s midterm elections to try and avoid political complications, and 12 Republicans eventually supported it, sending it to Biden’s desk.

Since Republicans took the House majority last year, though, Congress has moved on few legislative items that were not immediately urgent or that did not face deadlines for expiration. Schumer has said repeatedly that he would like to move on bills to improve rail safety, lower the cost of prescription drugs and improve online safety for children, among other bipartisan legislation. But most of those bills have stalled in the divided Congress as some Republicans and Democrats have been less willing to work together in an election year.

Instead, Schumer has focused the Senate on judicial nominations and political messaging bills, including a repeat vote last month on a border security bill that Republicans had already rejected in February after months of bipartisan negotiations. Democrats who have faced intense criticism over the border issue have hoped that they can blunt that issue somewhat by highlighting that legislation. But Republicans have said it did not go far enough.

Why Democrats seized on the contraception access issue

Democrats seized on the contraception issue after former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, said in an interview last month that he was open to supporting restrictions on birth control. He quickly reversed course and said that he “has never and never will” advocate to restrict that access.

Contraception has been increasingly entangled in the abortion debate in some conservative states, however. In Missouri, a women’s health care bill was stalled for months over concerns about expanding insurance coverage for birth control after some lawmakers falsely conflated birth control with medication abortion. In Arizona, Republicans unanimously blocked a Democratic effort to protect the right to contraception access. Tennessee Republicans blocked a bill that would have clarified that the state’s abortion ban would not affect contraceptive care or fertility treatments.

And in Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed bills from the Democratic-controlled Legislature that would have protected the right to contraception earlier this year. He said he supports the right to birth control but that “we cannot trample on the religious freedoms of Virginians.”

The Senate bill would make it federal law that an individual has the right to obtain contraceptives and to “engage in contraception,” and that health providers can provide them.

In the GOP-led House, Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina is leading a longshot effort to get enough signatures to discharge a similar version of the Senate’s contraception bill from committee and put it on the floor — a tactic used when leadership won’t bring up legislation for a vote.

Schumer said that the legislation designed to protect IVF access will come up in the Senate next week.

That bill comes after Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos can be considered children under state law earlier this year, causing several clinics to suspend IVF treatments. The state later enacted a law providing legal protections for IVF clinics, but Democrats have argued that Congress should act to guarantee nationwide access to reproductive care to try and prevent courts from making those decisions.

“Democrats will act to safeguard and strengthen IVF access for all Americans, so that everyone has a chance to start a family,” Schumer said.

Contributing: The Associated Press; Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest

Republican supporters had sued to stop public investment impact disclosures from appearing on three initiatives, one that would repeal the capital gains tax (I-2109), a second that would repeal the Climate Commitment Act (I-2117), and a third that would allow state residents to opt out of the state’s long-term care program (I-2124).

However, the measures require those financial disclosures, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp said in a ruling from the bench. The decision is based on a recent law that requires the state attorney general to spell out how funding would be affected by initiatives that repeal, impose or change any tax or fee.

“The people are entitled to know the fiscal impact that their vote will have on public investments at the time that they cast their ballots,” she said.

But Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp ruled, Friday, Zipp noted the Washington State Legislature was clear when it established rules requiring the financial impact statements.

Critics say state lawmakers were less-than-clear about how much the laws, that the initiatives seek to roll-back, would cost voters.

More from MyNorthwest: The latest political news from in and around the Puget Sound region

Opponents of the measures, who said they would have massive impacts on the state’s ability to provide critical services, praised the judge’s decision.

“Their lawsuit had one inexcusable purpose: to hide the truth about the impacts of these initiatives from voters,” Aaron Ostrom, executive director of the progressive advocacy organization FUSE Washington, said in a statement. “They know they will lose if voters understand what these destructive, deceptive initiatives actually do.”

Initiative author Jim Walsh, who along with Deanna Martinez sued to keep the fiscal impact off the ballot, said in an email to The Associated Press that they were concerned the “warning label” would be “weaponized.”

“We don’t mind the idea of more information, said Walsh, chair of the state Republican Party and a state representative from Aberdeen. “What we’re concerned about is it won’t be impartial information. It will be partisan rhetoric, weaponized to make the initiatives sound bad. The fight isn’t over. We are going to continue to make the point that we want unbiased non-political information.”

In an earlier interview with KIRO Newsradio, Walsh argued the Democratic majority which passed the bill went to great lengths not to call the underlying legislation of the initiatives a “tax or fee.”

“The governor and attorney general argued these were something different. They were costs or fees in some cases,” Walsh said. “OK, fine. So, you’re sneaking them in saying they’re not taxes but now saying fiscal impact statements are supposed to apply to taxes. They are trying to have it both ways.”

Is it a tax or not? Attorney general sued over controversial ballot language

Martinez is the chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington and is on the Moses Lake City Council.

Looking more at the ballot initiatives

The initiatives are just a few of the ones certified after the group Let’s Go Washington, which is primarily bankrolled by hedge fund executive Brian Heywood, submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of them. Initiatives that would give police greater ability to pursue people in vehicles, declare a series of rights for parents of public-school students and bar an income tax were approved by lawmakers. Heywood did not immediately respond to a voicemail seeking comment.

Tim O’Neal, an analyst with the Washington Community Alliance, said in response to the decision that when voters don’t have all the facts, they are less likely to vote and have their voice heard.

“The Public Investment Impact Disclosure law is important to building the transparency we need to increase voter trust and participation in our constitutional democracy,” he said in a statement.

Initiative 2117 would repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act, which works to cap and reduce pollution while creating revenue for investments that address climate change. It raised $1.8 billion in 2023 through quarterly auctions in which emission allowances are sold to businesses covered under the act.

Initiative 2109 would repeal the tax imposed on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds and other high-end assets, with exemptions for the first $262,000.

Initiative 2124 will decide whether state residents must pay into Washington Cares, the state’s public long-term care insurance program.

How does Washington fix its eviction case backlog? A constitutional change is needed

The interpretation of HB 1876

This comes down to the interpretation of House Bill 1876, a law the legislature passed and Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law in 2022. It’s the first time HB 1876 has come into play in an election. (A PDF of the bill analysis can be found here.)

The law says fiscal impact disclosure must appear on the ballot within the ballot title for “any measure that repeals, levies, or modifies a tax or fee” and would cause a net change in state revenue.

Walsh and Martinez claimed the law doesn’t apply to the three measures and asked the court to bar Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson from preparing statements on their fiscal impact and bar the secretary of state from certifying those statements.

But lawyers for the state said under the law, the public has a right to know an initiative’s financial impact.

Dr. Stephan Blanford, executive director of the Children’s Alliance, a nonpartisan child advocacy organization, said initiatives would give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while cutting funding for education. He also said the initiative to repeal the capital gains tax would push the state’s education system further into the red.

“By jeopardizing $8.1 billion in long-term care funding, I-2124 will put more tax pressure on Millennials and Gen Z to pay for a tidal wave of state Medicaid costs for aging Washingtonians, and increase the cost of care for millions of middle-income families,” he said.

The initiative to repeal the state’s carbon market “would allow more pollution across Washington, devastate funding air, water, and land protection, and cut funding to prevent wildfires and investments in transportation,” he said.

Contributing: Heather Bosch and Matt Markovich, KIRO Newsradio; The Associated Press

But The Seattle Times revealed Reichert’s feelings toward Trump, claiming he nodded that he would vote for the former president during a private conversation with a group of Republicans back in March. The Times leaked that conversation in a piece published online Thursday morning.

During a lengthy appearance on KIRO Newsradio’s “The Gee and Ursula Show” Friday, Travis Mayfield, KIRO Newsradio guest host, directly asked Reichert, “Will you be voting for Donald Trump in the presidential election?”

“That question seems to be almost comical,” Reichert responded. “No. 1, why does it matter who I’m going to vote for? Secondly, it seems that the Ferguson campaign is very focused on this. He’s got trackers on me. Every comment I make, his strategy is to take those comments out of context. So, it doesn’t matter who I’m voting for. I’m not going to nationalize this campaign by answering that question directly.”

More on Donald Trump: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes after trial

In the leaked audio from the Times, Reichert stated publicly supporting Trump would be a “nail in the coffin” for his candidacy. Reichert later said in his interview on “Gee and Ursula” that no matter what Trump’s policies are, if he’s elected in 2024, it would have no impact on his policy decisions as governor of Washington.

“On policy, I’m going to make that decision based upon what the people of Washington state would like us to do,” Reichert continued. “That’s what I did for 14 years in Congress in a Democrat district. I’ve been accused of being a rhino by one side and MAGA Trump by the other side. So whether I say I’m voting for Trump or not voting for Trump, if I told you today I was not voting for Trump, what would happen is I’d still be labeled as a MAGA Trump person.”

Reichert’s top priority as governor: Public safety

Reichert, a former sheriff of King County and former congressman of Washington’s 8th District, has valued public safety throughout his career as a public servant, a sentiment echoed in his travels around the state for his gubernatorial campaign.

“Sadly, we’re hearing about violent crime occurring on the streets of Washington almost every day now, so public safety is priority No. 1,” Reichert said.

Working previously as a patrol cop, a jailer for King County Sheriff’s Office, a homicide detective, a SWAT commander and as a hostage negotiator before taking on more managerial roles within law enforcement, Reichert’s 10-point plan focuses on police recruiting, directing the Washington State Patrol (WSP) to enforce the law, utilizing grant program funds to identify and arrest cartel and gang members trafficking drugs into the region while also prioritizing efforts against domestic violence and human trafficking.

According to the findings of the annual Crime in Washington report for 2022 from the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs (WASPC), the state’s per capita total of officers was 1.36 that year, the lowest on record, compared to the national average of 2.31 officers per capita. (A PDF of a shorter presentation related to the crime report can be seen here. A PDF of the full report can be viewed here.)

“My second priority is the homelessness issue, which is definitely directly related to public safety and really has to do with mental illness and substance abuse — those two major things are causing homelessness,” Reichert added, while also promising that the state’s economy and education are other immediate issues he wants to address.

“Do you think that we have lowered the standard when it comes to holding those responsible for those that are committing these crimes in this state?” Gee Scott, co-host of “The Gee and Ursula Show” asked.

“I do. People have to have an expectation that when you commit a crime, there are consequences to the crime. And that goes for police officers too,” Reichert answered. “We all are human beings. We all make mistakes. I do believe in second chances, third chances, but sooner or later, you have to learn a lesson that you can’t continue a life of crime and have no consequences attached to that. I do think there is a lack of accountability.”

Reichert cited that approximately 250,000 people left Washington for good last year, with many of them citing public and personal safety as a primary reason for departing.

Reichert on gay marriage, LGBTQ+ rights

During a meeting with the Pierce County Republican Party on Feb. 21, Reichert claimed marriage is only between a man and a woman while also revealing he does not support transgender students participating in athletics.

“I have my own personal beliefs:“ Reichert speaks on same-sex marriage following Ferguson’s post

“Is your marriage to a woman better than my marriage to a man?” Mayfield asked Reichert.

“Absolutely not,” Reichert answered. “These laws that you talked about — gay marriage, abortion — both have been decided by the people of Washington. As governor, I intend to honor those laws that have been passed by the people and that have been codified in law and set in place in Washington.”

Dave Reichert explains who he is, takes on Bob Ferguson

“Which Dave Reichert are we getting? In my opinion, there seems to be a Dave Reichert in some of these rooms where he’s talking to others (privately). There’s a Dave Reichert where he is talking to everyone,” Gee said. “Tell me personally, who am I voting for if I pick you for governor?”

More from Gee and Ursula: Owner of recovered zebra describes escape, getting kangaroos

“What I’ve just shared with you and your listeners, is the Dave Reichert that people should expect — my personal beliefs and my expression of my personal beliefs.

“In any meetings, I know that I’m being recorded every time. So these aren’t statements made without knowledge that somebody is recording me,” Reichert continued. “These are statements that are taken out of context in the middle of a conversation that are given to the news media by my opponent, Bob Ferguson who, right now, has decided he doesn’t want to talk about his effort to support defunding of police. He doesn’t want to talk about the non-pursuit policy that he supported. He doesn’t want us to talk about supporting legalizing fentanyl on the streets of our cities.

“You’ve got a candidate on the other side of the aisle who’s running a campaign that is specifically directed at trying to undermine my reputation as an honest cop and honest member of Congress.”

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

The video, posted by a witness to Instagram last week, shows Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers striking a man at a bus stop while attempting to arrest him. One officer was using a baton and the other was using his fists. The man could be heard yelling, “Police brutality!” in the video.

At one point, one of the officers appears to put his knee on the man’s upper back or neck. SPD policy prohibits such tactics by its officers.

The video posted online does not show what lead up to the confrontation. It is also not clear why the man was under arrest.

A spokesperson for the city of Seattle’s Office of Police Accountability (OPA) confirmed to KIRO Newsradio Wednesday the office has opened an “intake investigation” into the incident, but it will not comment any further.

Crime blotter: Covering the crimes committed in the Puget Sound region

When online users get to the website that allows people to check and track complaint statuses, it says the investigation was opened Monday and that, “OPA has received the complaint and a preliminary investigation has begun.” The process, which includes the OPA director reviewing the file, takes up to 30 days, the website states.

Deeanthony Marcell, the man who recorded the video, told KING 5 he doesn’t have to wait for the full story to judge the matter he saw unfold because he felt he was witnessing an injustice. KING 5 was one of the first Seattle outlets to report this story.

“It is never OK,” Marcell said. “And that’s the only reason why I recorded it.”

A spokesperson for Seattle City Council member Tammy Morales told KING 5 the matter is serious and said their office will look into what happened. The incident took place in her district.

KIRO Newsradio has requested body camera footage of the arrest from the SPD.

Contributing: Heather Bosch and Sam Campbell, KIRO Newsradio; Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest

The weapons were used under recently approved guidance from President Joe Biden allowing American arms to be used to strike inside Russia for the limited purpose of defending Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city.

The official was not authorized to comment publicly on the sensitive matter and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Biden’s directive allows for U.S.-supplied weapons to be used to strike Russian forces that are attacking or preparing to attack. It does not change U.S. policy that directs Ukraine not to use American-provided ATACMS or long-range missiles and other munitions to strike offensively inside Russia, U.S. officials have said.

Ukrainian officials had stepped up calls on the U.S. to allow Kyiv’s forces to defend themselves against attacks originating from Russian territory. Kharkiv sits just 12 miles from the Russian border and has come under intensified Russian attack.

In advancing in the northeast Kharkiv region, Russian forces have exploited a lengthy delay in the replenishment of U.S. military aid. In addition, Western Europe’s inadequate military production has slowed crucial deliveries to the battlefield for Ukraine.

On Tuesday, White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters that he could not confirm that Ukraine had used U.S. weapons at targets in Russia.

“We’re just not in a position on a day-to-day basis of knowing exactly what the Ukrainians are firing at what,” Kirby said. “It’s certainly at a tactical level.”

According to a June 3 report from the Institute for the Study of War, Ukrainian forces struck a Russian S-300/400 air defense battery in Belgorod Oblast, likely with the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, on June 1 or June 2. The air defense system was located roughly 60 kilometers (about 40 miles) from the current front line in northern Kharkiv Oblast and more than 50 miles from the city of Kharkiv, which is within the range of HIMARS, the institute reported.

Confirmation of the strikes comes as Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, visited Qatar, which along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has been a key mediators in prisoner swaps and other negotiations between Russia and Ukraine since the war began.

The long-anticipated presidential proclamation would bar migrants from being granted asylum when U.S. officials deem that the southern border is overwhelmed. The Democratic president had contemplated unilateral action for months after the collapse of a bipartisan border security deal in Congress that most Republican lawmakers rejected at the behest of former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

Biden said he preferred more lasting action via legislation but “Republicans have left me no choice.” Instead, he said he was acting on his own to “gain control of the border” while also insisting that “I believe immigration has always been the lifeblood of America.”

Trump “told the Republicans … that he didn’t want to fix the issue, he wanted to use it to attack me,” Biden said. “It was a cynical, extremely cynical, political move and a complete disservice to the American people who are looking for us not to weaponize the border but to fix it.”

Trump, on the other hand, used his social media account to assail Biden again over immigration, saying the Democrat had “totally surrendered our Southern Border” and his order was “all for show” ahead of their June 27 presidential debate.

More details on the Biden directive

The order will go into effect when the number of border encounters between ports of entry hits 2,500 per day, according to senior administration officials. That means Biden’s order should go into effect immediately, because the daily averages are higher now. Average daily arrests for illegal crossings from Mexico were last below 2,500 in January 2021, the month Biden took office. The last time the border encounters dipped to 1,500 a day was in July 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The restrictions would be in effect until two weeks after the daily encounter numbers are at or below 1,500 per day between ports of entry, under a seven-day average. Those figures were first reported by The Associated Press on Monday.

More from The White House: Biden takes a big swing at deal, puts onus on Israeli, Hamas officials to step up

Homeland Security said increased enforcement with Mexico since high-level bilateral meetings in late December has lowered illegal crossings but is “likely to be less effective over time,” creating a need for more action. “Smuggling networks are adaptable, responding to changes put in place,” the department said in a federal rule published Tuesday.

The department predicts that arrests for illegal crossings may climb to a daily average as high as 6,700 from July through September.

Once this order is in effect, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, anyone who expresses that fear or an intention to seek asylum will be screened by a U.S. asylum officer but at a higher standard than currently used. If they pass the screening, they can pursue more limited forms of humanitarian protection, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

Reactions from US representatives from Washington

Democratic  U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal said she’s “profoundly” disappointed at the move from the Biden administration.

“This attempt to shut down the border to asylum seekers uses the same section of U.S. immigration laws that convicted felon Donald Trump used to implement the Muslim Ban and in attempts to cut off all access to asylum,” Jayapal said in a statement issued Tuesday. “While there are some differences from Trump’s actions, the reality is that this utilizes the same failed enforcement-only approach, penalizes asylum seekers, and furthers a false narrative that these actions will ‘fix’ the border.”

She went on to explain what she believes will actually remedy what is happening at the border.

“The reality is that the only thing that will ‘fix’ the border is to modernize a desperately outdated immigration system that has reduced legal pathways and resources to process immigrants to intolerable levels.

She also took an opportunity to go after Republicans in the other legislative chamber for what she perceives is their inaction.

“Senate Republicans have used the power of the Jim Crow legacy filibuster to block any bipartisan compromise legislation passed in the House,” Jayapal said as part of her statement.

Jayapal wasn’t the only elected official criticizing the president’s move.

Washington Democratic U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez released a joint press statement with three fellow Democratic U.S. Representatives:  Jared Golden, D-ME, Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, and Don Davis, D-N.C.

The statement begins by noting that while this is a step the U.S. representatives have sought for, it’s overdue and still not enough.

“This order is an overdue step, but our Southern Border is still not secure. We’ve long demanded President Biden change course and empower the Border Patrol, and he’s finally acting and listening to the law enforcement agents in the field, like we’ve been telling him to do,” the statement reads.

The end of the short statement reiterates their stand on this issue and notes that security at the border must be a significant national security priority.

“Border security must be the top national security priority for President Biden,” the statement reads. “The President needs to do all he can to restore operational control of our Southern Border, and stop drug cartels from trafficking fentanyl into communities across America.”

The four also explained that In April, after voting for H.R. 3602 to restore operational control at the Southern Border, U.S. Reps. Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, Peltola, and Davis called on Bidewn to “utilize his full executive authority to secure the border.” They called on Biden to “utilize his full authority again in May, and are renewing their call (Tuesday).”

‘We’re troubled’: Others affected react to the action

“We’re troubled to see this administration raise the bar on asylum seekers who are coming to our southern border and exercising a legal right,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. “Certainly no one wants to see migrants who may be coming to seek a better life or for economic opportunity game the asylum system, but we see in our clients and in other immigrants people who are fleeing the most dire of circumstances at a time of unprecedented global migration and believe that the U.S. is still a beacon of hope and refuge.”

At the border Tuesday, there were no visible signs of immediate impact.

Iselande Peralta, a Haitian mother staying at a migrant shelter in Reynosa, Mexico, with her 3-year-old son, said the U.S. was within its rights to enforce new restrictions. She has been trying for 10 months to get an appointment through U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s online app, called CBP One. Peralta, 26, wouldn’t consider crossing illegally and considers CBP One her best option.

“Even if I was crazy, I wouldn’t cross the river. How would I do that with a child as young as him? I’m willing to wait,” she said.

Biden’s directive is coming when the number of migrants encountered at the border have been on a consistent decline since December, but senior administration officials say the numbers are still too high and could spike in better weather, as is typical.

Biden’s message to West Point graduates: You’re being asked to tackle threats ‘like none before’

President Joe Biden speaks about an executive order on border security in the East Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, June 4, 2024. (Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP)

Questions about Biden’s directive persist

Yet many questions and complications remain about how Biden’s directive would be implemented.

For instance, the administration already has an agreement with Mexico in which Mexico agrees to accept up to 30,000 citizens a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela once they are denied entry from the U.S., and senior administration officials say that will continue under this order. But it is unclear what happens to nationals of other countries who are denied under Biden’s directive.

Four senior administration officials, who insisted on anonymity to describe the effort to reporters, acknowledged that Biden’s goal of deporting migrants quickly is complicated by insufficient funding from Congress to do so. The administration also faces certain legal constraints when it comes to detaining migrant families, and the administration said it would continue to abide by those obligations.

The legal authority being invoked by Biden comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a president to limit entries for certain migrants if their entry is deemed “detrimental” to the national interest. Senior officials expressed confidence that they would be able to implement Biden’s order, despite threats from prominent legal groups to file lawsuits over the directive.

“We intend to sue,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who successfully argued similar legal challenges when Trump was president. “A ban on asylum is illegal, just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it.”

The senior administration officials insisted that Biden’s proposal differs dramatically from that of Trump, who leaned on the same provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Biden is using, including Trump’s 2017 directive to bar citizens of Muslim-majority nations and his efforts in 2018 to clamp down on asylum.

Biden’s order outlines several groups of migrants who would be exempted due to humanitarian reasons, including victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and those with severe medical emergencies.

The directive would also exempt migrants who make appointments with border officials at ports of entry using the CBP One app. About 1,450 appointments are made a day using the app, which launched last year to allow migrants to make asylum claims.

Immigration advocates worry that Biden’s plan would only increase an already monthslong backlog of migrants waiting for an appointment through the app, especially when immigration authorities do not have an accompanying surge of funding.

It could also be difficult for border officials to quickly remove migrants when many agents are already tasked with helping in shelters and other humanitarian tasks, said Jennie Murray, the president of the National Immigration Forum.

“Customs and Border Protection cannot keep up with apprehensions as it is right now because they don’t have enough personnel so it would cause more disorder,” she said.

Republicans dismissed Biden’s order as nothing more than a “political stunt” meant to show toughened immigration enforcement ahead of the election.

“He tried to convince us all for all this time that there was no way he could possibly fix the mess,” GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a news conference. “Remember that he engineered it.”

In a call organized by Trump’s campaign, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser in Trump’s White House who orchestrated his most polarizing immigration policies, and Tom Homan, former acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration, said Biden’s order essentially would allow 2,500 people into the country a day and legalize the illegal entry into the U.S.

“The only reason they’re doing this is because of the election,” Homan said. “They’ve had three and a half years to take action and done nothing.”

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said legislation would have been more effective, but “Republican intransigence has forced the president’s hand.”

Contributing: The Associated Press; Steve Coogan

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a reprimand to Bird, with a commanding officer stating that Bird perpetuated “fraud” against the United States to advance his career.

First reported by Jason Rantz of “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, the investigation follows accusations by the U.S. Army and two members of the Green Berets that Bird engaged in stolen valor by misrepresenting his actions during a firefight in the Iraq war.

Rantz exclusive: Semi Bird reprimanded for fraud against US Army, after ‘stolen valor’ claims

State Republican Party Chairman Jim Walsh of Aberdeen told KIRO Newsradio the party is looking into the reprimand and accusations and has “not yet” decided about rescinding the party’s endorsement of Bird.

“We are trying to find out what can be verified and what can be refuted. I mean, this issue really is one that Mr. Bird has to address,” Walsh says. “This is a matter of trust.”

Walsh added he wants to give Bird an opportunity to discuss the circumstances surrounding what he has been accused of doing.

“We want to give Bird time to articulate what happened and explain it. Bird has to talk to the people in a way that makes his position clear and understandable. So, we’re going to give him time to do this,” Walsh continued.

Walsh finds himself in a precarious situation following Bird’s endorsement by 70% of the roughly 1,800 delegates who attended the party’s convention in Spokane in April.

Former U.S. Rep. and fellow gubernatorial candidate Dave Reichert never attended the convention but has received the endorsement of the Mainstream Republicans of Washington.

Previous coverage: Semi Bird wins endorsement for governor from Washington GOP

The WSRP bylaws adopted in January 2023 do not mention the rescinding a convention endorsement of a candidate.

However, the party did provide an FAQ about endorsements to delegates during the convention. It also does not mention any procedure for withdrawing a candidate’s endorsement. (A PDF of the party’s endorsement process FAQ can be seen here.)

It does say the party will give its full breadth of support to whoever the convention endorses.

“Following an endorsement at the State Convention, candidates will receive the full and exclusive support, resources, and infrastructure of the Washington State Republican Party and its partnered organizations for their campaign,” the FAQ document reads.

Earlier coverage from Matt Markovich: Washington GOP faces internal feud over endorsements

“There’s not a clear mechanism to rescind endorsements. And I’m not a big believer in that anyway,” Walsh says. “I think rescinding an endorsement sometimes just draws the issue farther into the light, and I don’t know if it resolves anything or not.”

He says the party will “consider every option,” including rescinding the endorsement.

“It would be complicated. In theory, the party could do some kind of suspension of rules or modification of rules. But it’s messy. There’s not a clear mechanism to do it.”

Bird has denied he engaged in stolen valor, and there’s confusing information being made available to the public.

“People accusing me of stolen valor, no, I was never ever reprimanded for something like that,” Bird told KTTH.

Bird says he’s not going to quit the race for governor and had harsh words for Democrats who oppose him.

“I’m not going to get off the ballot. They’ve already tried to character assassinate me. This is disgusting. This is a level of evil,” Bird said.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

The lawsuit claims a 15-word fiscal impact statement required by law on measures involving state funding “does not apply” to the initiatives.

“These fiscal impact statements are highly controversial,” Walsh told KIRO Newsradio. “The bill that created them was very partisan.”

It comes down to the interpretation of House Bill 1876, a law the legislature passed and Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law in 2022. It’s the first time HB 1876 has come into play in an election. (A PDF of the bill analysis can be found here.)

The law says fiscal impact disclosure must appear on the ballot within the ballot title for “any measure that repeals, levies, or modifies a tax or fee” and would cause a net change in state revenue.

How does Washington fix its eviction case backlog? A constitutional change is needed

Looking more at the initiatives

Voters in November will decide the fate of three initiatives that Walsh filed on behalf of their backers.

Initiative 2109 repeals a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks and bonds over $262,000.

Initiative 2117 would overturn the Climate Commitment Act, a signature piece of legislation for Inslee.

Initiative 2124 allows workers to opt out of the state’s long-term care program.

Walsh argues the Democratic majority which passed the bill went to great lengths not to call the underlying legislation of the initiatives a “tax or fee.”

“The governor and attorney general argued these were something different. They were costs or fees in some cases,” Walsh said. “OK, fine. So, you’re sneaking them in saying they’re not taxes but now saying fiscal impact statements are supposed to apply to taxes. They are trying to have it both ways.”

Attorney General Bob Ferguson is the leading democratic candidate to replace Inslee who is leaving office after three terms.

More from Matt Markovich: Signature gathering begins for initiative to keep natural gas in Washington

On their face, all three initiatives would have a monetary impact on the state’s collection of taxes.

The disclosure required on the ballot and voter pamphlet must be drafted by the attorney general, who may consult with the Office of Financial Management or other state and local agencies as needed and is not subject to appeal.

“They are basically editorializing on the anticipated tax and fiscal impacts of various initiatives, particularly initiatives that affect either by cutting or, in theory, increasing taxes,” Walsh said.

He is calling the 15-word statement “political spin” by the governor, the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, and the state’s Office of Financial Management.

“Together, they can come up with, basically scare tactics to frighten voters about the fiscal impacts of various initiatives that involve tax reform. And it’s politics. It’s pure politics,” Walsh stated.

Responses to Rep. Walsh’s lawsuit

Ferguson did not respond directly to Walsh’s lawsuit, but Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell did, calling the lawsuit, “a meritless attempt to deny voters information.”

Purcell, who works for the Office of Attorney General in his role, called Walsh’s interpretation of the new financial impact disclosures law “bizarre.”

He said Walsh’s argument that the Legislature already silently repealed the capital gains tax under Initiative 2117, therefore, an impact statement is no longer needed, is “inaccurate.”

Purcell also called Walsh’s claim that the initiative repealing the Climate Commitment Act doesn’t need an impact statement because it doesn’t involve the repeal of taxes and fees inaccurate as well.

The same holds true for Walsh’s argument regarding the initiative to opt out of the long-term care tax.

In summary, Purcell wrote there was no basis for prohibiting a financial impact statement on the ballot for all three initiatives.

“All three repeal or modify taxes or fees and all three have significant fiscal impacts,” Purcell said.

Purcell asked the Thurston County Superior Court, where the complaint was filed, to reject the lawsuit calling it a “cynical attempt to keep voters in the dark.”

A hearing will be held Friday at the courthouse in Olympia.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich