King County Charter amendments: substance and popcorn

King County has eight charter amendments on the November ballot. This page endorsed Amendment 8 (Initiative 26), for nonpartisan elections Wednesday. Of the rest, Amendment 7 is the most important because it restricts access to the ballot.

Two of the amendments this year were put on the ballot by public petition. Amendment 7 would make this much more difficult by raising the number of signatures needed. Now it's 10 percent of the number who voted for county executive. The proposed rule is 20 percent: 105,634 signatures instead of 52,817.

In the five years King County has lived with the lower threshold, the people have put four measures on the ballot. The first reduced the size of the Metropolitan King County Council from 13 to nine. The second created citizen's councils. The third would make the director of elections an elected job. The fourth would make most elected positions nonpartisan. The third and fourth are on the ballot now.

Is that too much democracy? We don't think so. The council put more measures on the ballot this year alone — and several of them were electoral popcorn (see below).

Consider also the council's motive in making it harder for the people to act through Amendment 7. It reduces your power and increases theirs. VOTE NO.

Here's a rundown of the other amendments:

Amendment 1 (Initiative 25) would establish an elected elections director. This measure is a reaction to the election fiasco of 2004 — and procedures are much improved. The director of elections is a technical job and should be appointed. VOTE NO.

Amendment 2 would ban discrimination by the county government in jobs and private contracting based on disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. This is a housekeeping measure that follows what was done in state law two years ago. VOTE YES.

Amendment 3 concerns membership on the regional transit, regional water-quality and regional policy committees. These now have six council members and six from city governments. The amendment would cut it to three council members but give each member two votes. The council would therefore have the same power with half the work. VOTE NO.

Amendment 4 would allow the County Council to enact restrictions on who could run for auditor, sheriff or, if Amendment 1 is approved, elections director. Currently, the requirements are: age 18, citizen, county voter. That's all. While we agree that anyone elected should have more qualifications than that, it should be the people's business — not the council's — to say what those qualifications are. VOTE NO.

Amendment 5 would have the county hire an economist to make revenue forecasts, and would require the executive to use these forecasts in official budget requests. This is what the state has been doing for 24 years, and it has made the state's budgets more honest. VOTE YES.

Amendment 6 would move up certain budget deadlines by 20 days. Budgets are more and more complicated, and the fine-print folks need more time. Give 'em a break. VOTE YES.