Proposed Amendment 1 -- Representation by District

Guest Editorial by Karl Uppiano

Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? 

Citizens need to know that the Charter Review Commission cannot force this amendment down anyone's throat. If it makes it onto the ballot, the voters must approve it in the November election in order for it to take effect. In which case, we can expect a vigorous campaign season, and lots of public discussion. Precisely the kind of discussion we ought to be having, in fact. One has to wonder why anyone would want to deny voters a chance to weigh in on this proposal.

There have been some alternatives put forth, mainly concerning the re-districting of Whatcom County into more districts. This is worth considering, and the commission is discussing it. However, the main concern is that this alternative proposal, if two similar amendments appear on the ballot at the same time, would be confusing, with the additional and significant complexity of redistricting; it would probably be a bridge too far for most voters. In fact, some cynics consider this nothing more than a poison pill, that would split the vote, and effectively torpedo the original proposal.

There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread by factions on both sides the issue. Progressives fear that representation by district will favor conservatives. Conservatives fear that at-large representation will favor progressives and environmentalists. This isn't necessarily so, however. In fact, one of the main proponents of at-large representation from the last time we flip-flopped, was a conservative from District One, who realized he probably didn't have a snowball's chance of winning a race in his district. 

The fact is, it is hard to predict which faction will be favored in either election model. We have some history from both models, and so far, we haven't had a conservative majority on the council in recent memory, either way. It is hard to imagine a safe, pro-coal majority (as if it were the only issue). 

Would you want Blaine, Lynden or Ferndale citizens electing Bellingham's mayor? Or vice-versa? Why then, would you want them electing representation for your council district? Whatcom County has a diverse population. The people of District 1 are more urban; the people of Districts 2 & 3 are more rural. Each district has the right to elect representation that reflects their local needs and preferences.

Proponents of at-large representation claim that the Whatcom County Council should represent everyone. That’s absolutely true. But representation by district gives us two councilors per district, and one at-large, which in fact, does cover everyone -- by district! We all have the same access to representation, and save for the one at-large seat, we don't get to select the representation of another district. Our representatives would represent us as a proportion of the county population. Councilors and the citizens would have a closer relationship, and would be elected from among our neighbors.

With the exception of the already designated at-large seat, campaigning by district would involve 1/3 the time, effort, and money per candidate. This makes the job accessible to more people. This ought to appeal to anyone who wants to get the money out of politics. Campaigning by district would also amount to 1/3 the environmental impact, in the form of signs, flyers, rack cards, brochures, litter, and last, but not least, carbon footprint.

If we are going to have districts in this county, then we ought to use them as they were originally intended – representing directly the diverse needs and preferences of all corners of Whatcom County.