ReportWire

Tag: Washington state government

  • Washington state attorney general and Green River Killer detective advance in race for governorship

    Washington state attorney general and Green River Killer detective advance in race for governorship

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE (AP) — Washington state’s longtime attorney general and a former sheriff known for his work hunting down the Green River Killer advanced Tuesday to November’s general election in the battle to become the next governor in a Democratic stronghold that hasn’t had an open race for the state’s top job in more than a decade.

    In high profile congressional races, meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez advanced in the 3rd District and will face Donald Trump-endorsed Joe Kent, whom she defeated two years ago. And in the 8th District, Democratic U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier will go head-to-head against Republican Carmen Goers, a commercial banker.

    A congressional race in the 4th District between U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, one of the last remaining House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, and two conservative rivals endorsed by the GOP presidential nominee was too early to call.

    Under the state’s primary system, the top two vote-getters in each of the contests advance to the November election, regardless of party. Because Washington is a vote-by-mail state, with ballots due to be postmarked by Election Day, it often takes days to learn final results in close races.

    Here’s a look at key Washington races:

    Governor’s race

    Bob Ferguson, a Democrat who has served as attorney general since 2013, went up against more than two dozen candidates in the primary. He will face former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, a Republican, in November. The race has featured weeks of intense sparring between the two rivals.

    “Washington voters have sent a message that they are ready for a change,” Reichert said in a statement. “I am thankful to all who voted for me in this primary.”

    In a state with a reputation as solid Democratic territory that hasn’t had a Republican governor in nearly 40 years, any conservative candidate faces an uphill battle. But the race is considered competitive.

    3rd Congressional District

    Gluesenkamp Perez made it through the primary in the 3rd District, advancing to what is expected to be one of the tightest general elections in the U.S. She’ll face off again against Kent, a Republican and former Green Beret who has called for the impeachment of President Joe Biden.

    “Southwest Washington rejected the divisive, extreme politics of Joe Kent two years ago,” Gluesenkamp Perez said in a statement. “We rejected them again tonight, we will reject them in November, and we will stop Joe Kent from using our seat in Congress to promote his online attention-seeking behavior and his angry, hateful, dangerous worldview.”

    Two years ago, Gluesenkamp Perez came out of nowhere to win the congressional seat in a district that hadn’t been in Democratic hands for over a decade. She took over a seat held by a more moderate Republican who lost the primary in part because she voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

    Gluesenkamp Perez supports abortion access and policies to counter climate change, but also speaks openly about being a gun owner. Meanwhile, Kent says Gluesenkamp Perez only pretends to be a moderate.

    During a livestream on the social platform X, Kent told enthusiastic supporters that Trump called him on election night.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    “He wanted me to tell you guys thank you so much for all the hard work you did getting me here,” Kent said. “He appreciates you guys; I really appreciate all of you.”

    8th Congressional District

    Schrier and Goers advanced to the November general election in the 8th District race.

    “The people of the Eighth District have seen how I have delivered for them and know I will continue to fight to bring down costs, ensure everyone feels safe in their community, and make Roe the law of the land,” Schrier said in a statement.

    Goers is a commercial banker running to tamp down inflation and cut back on crime. Schrier, a pediatrician, has showcased the 14 bills she’s had signed into law by Trump and Biden.

    “We need a change and I’m excited to work with you to bring that change to our district and state,” Goers said in a statement.

    The district is a mix of wealthy Seattle exurbs populated by tech workers and central Washington farmland, and until 2019 had been held by the GOP.

    4th Congressional District

    Newhouse’s bid for a sixth term has meant going up against Trump-endorsed candidates Jerrod Sessler, a Navy veteran, and Tiffany Smiley, a former nurse who entered the race after losing to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray two years ago. The former president’s backing for Sessler came months ago, while his endorsement for Smiley happened three days before the primary, marking a unique, though not unprecedented, dual endorsement by the former president.

    Newhouse is one of the last remaining House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. His opponents believe that vote is a huge liability, but political experts caution it’s difficult to say whether the endorsements will sway voters who already stuck with Newhouse two years ago.

    Newhouse is endorsed by the NRA and the National Right to Life, and he has mostly steered clear of the subject of Trump. He’s instead focused on agriculture and border security in a state with millions of acres of pastures, orchards and cereal grain lands where immigrant labor is extremely important.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Some Democratic-led states seek to bolster voter protections

    Some Democratic-led states seek to bolster voter protections

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers in several Democratic-controlled states are advocating sweeping voter protections this year, reacting to what they view as a broad undermining of voting rights by the Supreme Court and Republican-led states as well as a failed effort in Congress to bolster access to the polls.

    Legislators in Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Mexico have introduced voting rights measures, while Michigan’s secretary of state is preparing a plan.

    Among other things, the proposals would require state approval for local governments to change redistricting or voting procedures, ban voter suppression and intimidation, mandate that ballots are printed in more languages, increase protections for voters with disabilities, ensure the right to vote for those with previous felony convictions and instruct judges to prioritize voter access when hearing election-related challenges.

    The measures are taking a much wider approach than legislation targeting a single aspect of voting or elections law. They seek to implement on a statewide basis many of the protections under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that many Democrats and voting rights groups say is being stripped of its most important elements.

    If the legislation is enacted, the states would join California, New York, Oregon, Washington and Virginia in having comprehensive voting rights laws.

    “It’s up to states now to ensure that the right to vote is protected,” said Janai Nelson, president of the the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    Maryland’s proposal includes a requirement for local voting changes to receive preapproval, mirroring core provisions of the federal law that was struck down by the Supreme Court a decade ago.

    Maryland was not among the states, mostly in the South, that was covered under the provision known as preclearance before the court ended it. But lawmakers there saw it as important because of persistent concerns over how districts for local governing bodies have been drawn, said Morgan Drayton, policy and engagement manager at Common Cause Maryland.

    “A lot of our maps here are drawn behind closed doors, and there’s not a lot of input from the public that’s able to be given,” she said. “So this would do a lot to make these processes more transparent.”

    In Maryland’s Baltimore County, a lawsuit claimed the county council’s map packed most Black voters into a single district. The state legislation would require jurisdictions in Maryland with a history of voter discrimination to have redistricting and election changes cleared by the state attorney general.

    Democratic state Del. Stephanie Smith, a co-sponsor of the legislation, said that despite Maryland’s racial diversity and history of diversity in its political leadership, “access to the ballot and equitable representation is uneven.”

    “This bill strengthens our commitment to voting access and protections at a time of great stress on our democratic institutions,” she said.

    Proposals in Michigan and New Mexico address harassment against election workers and voters, especially those in minority communities. One of several bills in New Mexico would protect election officials, from the secretary of state to county and municipal elections clerks, from intimidation. That would be defined as inducing or attempting to induce fear, and a violation would be punishable as a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said she will seek similar protections for voters, including prohibiting firearms within a certain distance of polling places.

    “We need an explicit ban on voter suppression and intimidation,” she said.

    Connecticut’s legislation would expand language assistance for voters who speak, read or understand languages other than English. Language assistance is covered under the federal law, but only specifies protections for Spanish-speakers and for Asian, Native American and Alaska Native language minorities.

    Ballots offered in Arabic, Haitian Creole and other languages also are needed, said Steven Lance, policy counsel at the national NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    A language would be covered if the group speaking it is more than 2% of the citizens of voting age in a particular municipality or the group includes more than 4,000 citizens of voting age, under Connecticut’s legislative proposal.

    Residents also would have the right to ask the secretary of state to review whether a certain language should be covered, Lance said.

    In New Jersey, advocacy organizations are pushing to expand voting rights legislation to include more groups that would be specifically protected from discrimination, including the state’s sizable Arab American population.

    “A reality is the federal VRA was originally crafted in 1965, and while there have been other bills in the decade since, the VRA doesn’t reflect the diversity of the population of New Jersey in 2023,” said Henal Patel, law & policy director at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

    Some state voting rights bills also seek to create databases for information that has not always been readily available, such as polling place locations, voting rules and redistricting maps. The bills also would specify that state judges interpret voting laws in a way that ensures people maintain their right to vote.

    Democrats in Minnesota are pushing numerous voting changes, including restoring voting rights to felons as soon as they are released from prison, allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister so they are ready to vote as soon as they turn 18 and automatically registering people to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses.

    Passing state voting rights legislation is only half the battle, said state Sen. Jennifer McClellan, a Virginia Democrat who introduced a state voting rights act that passed in 2021 when Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office.

    McClellan noted that ensuring voting rights historically was a bipartisan issue, but said Republicans are now focused on “fighting phantom voter fraud” — making this year’s Virginia legislative elections all the more important.

    “The entire General Assembly is up for election this year, and I think that’s going to be a big theme in the election — that if we want to protect our progress on voting rights, we’re going to need to make sure that Democrats keep the Senate and regain the majority in the House,” McClellan said.

    McClellan won a special election this past week to fill an open seat in the U.S. House, where she will make history as the first Black woman to represent the state in Congress.

    ___

    Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court reinstates guilty verdicts in 1987 killings of couple

    Court reinstates guilty verdicts in 1987 killings of couple

    [ad_1]

    EVERETT, Wash. — The Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated two aggravated murder convictions for a man in the 1987 killings of a young Canadian couple.

    The high court unanimously rejected the defense’s arguments that William Talbott II should be granted a new trial due to one juror’s alleged bias, concluding that defense attorneys could have dismissed the juror ahead of the trial but opted not to, The Daily Herald reported.

    Detectives arrested Talbott, 59, in 2018 after using the then-novel method of forensic genealogy to connect him to the slayings of Tanya Van Cuylenborg, 18, and Jay Cook, 20. A Snohomish County jury convicted him of the killings in 2019, sentencing him to life in prison, but an appeals court overturned that conviction last year due to one juror’s perceived bias.

    Snohomish County prosecutors then appealed that ruling to the state’s highest court.

    Van Cuylenborg and Cook disappeared in November 1987 after leaving their home near Victoria, British Columbia, for an overnight trip to Seattle. Their bodies were found in separate locations in northwestern Washington about a week later.

    Investigators preserved DNA evidence recovered from Van Cuylenborg’s body and pants. Authorities used genetic genealogy in 2018 to identify the suspect as Talbott, who was 24 at the time of the killings and lived near where Cook’s body was discovered.

    Defense attorneys have never challenged the forensic genealogy. The appeal hinged on the seating of juror No. 40.

    Under questioning in jury selection, the woman expressed doubts about her ability to be impartial. Still, she said she would try to be fair and said she was a “fact-based person.”

    Talbott’s defense attorneys did not use their option to excuse her.

    Chief Justice Steven González noted during September oral arguments that the juror hadn’t made a statement that showed unquestionable bias or a blatant conflict of interest.

    “We reaffirm that if a party allows a juror to be seated and does not exhaust their peremptory challenges, then they cannot appeal on the basis that the juror should have been excused for cause,” Justice Mary Yu wrote in the 9-0 decision.

    Talbott has remained in custody since he was arrested four years ago. If the verdicts had not been reinstated, he would have faced another trial. He has been in custody at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla.

    The case is next expected to return to the state Court of Appeals to address other legal questions raised by the defendant. Talbott’s attorneys also have made arguments about “insufficient evidence,” the “inadequacy of the police investigation” and a series of other alleged missteps at trial, but those were not weighed in the state Court of Appeals’ first ruling.

    Talbott has maintained his innocence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court: Long sentence for Black man who killed at 17 stands

    Court: Long sentence for Black man who killed at 17 stands

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — The Washington Supreme Court has declined to reconsider an opinion that upheld a Black man’s virtual life sentence for shootings he committed at age 17, despite criticism that the ruling betrayed racial bias.

    The court upheld the 61-year sentence for Tonelli Anderson in September, abandoning a precedent issued just a year earlier in which it said — in the case of a white defendant — that such long terms for juvenile killers were unconstitutional because it left them no chance of a meaningful life outside prison.

    Anderson’s attorney, Travis Stearns of the Washington Appellate Project, sought reconsideration of the 5-4 ruling, writing that it reflected racial bias. Three civil rights organizations — the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at Seattle University School of Law; the Juvenile Law Center, based in Philadelphia; and Huy, which supports Indigenous inmates in the Pacific Northwest — also urged the court to reconsider.

    But such motions are legal long shots, and the court denied it Monday without explanation. The King County prosecutors had also opposed it, saying Anderson’s criminal history and belated acceptance of responsibility helped distinguish his case.

    Anderson, now 45, shot two women, killing one and blinding the other, during a drug robbery in Tukwila in 1994. An accomplice also shot and killed a man at the same home.

    Anderson was not immediately arrested and went on to commit other crimes as a young adult, including assault and robbery, and he wrote letters to girlfriends bragging about the shootings. It wasn’t until 1998, after investigators learned of the letters, that he was charged.

    He was convicted of first-degree murder in 2000 and sentenced to 61 years. He was granted a new sentencing hearing in 2018, following federal and state rulings that children must be treated differently by the justice system. But the judge gave him the same term, finding Anderson had not shown the shootings reflected “transient immaturity.”

    In recent years, the Washington Supreme Court has further restricted sentences that can be imposed on children.

    In 2018, the justices held that it violated the state Constitution to sentence 16- or 17-year-olds to life in prison without parole. That ruling came in the case of Brian Bassett, a white man who killed his parents and brother when he was 16. Bassett has since been resentenced to 28 years.

    In September, the court struck down a 46-year sentence for Timothy Haag, a white man who was 17 when he drowned his 7-year-old neighbor. In that case, a six-justice majority held that juvenile murder defendants must be given “a meaningful opportunity to rejoin society after leaving prison.”

    Bassett and Haag were both quickly caught and prosecuted.

    In Anderson’s appeal, Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the 5-4 majority that such virtual life sentences for juveniles are barred by the state Constitution only if their crimes “reflect youthful immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences.”

    Anderson’s was not such a case, Stephens said.

    The dissenting justices said it was nonsensical that the court would find a 46-year sentence for a white 17-year-old to be an unconstitutional “de facto” life sentence, while upholding a 61-year sentence for a Black 17-year-old. Justice Mary Yu wrote it would be “willfully oblivious” to conclude race played no role.

    The King County Prosecutor’s Office said the high court’s decision maintained the discretion of trial judges to weigh the facts of each case and apply an appropriate sentence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link