[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6099876,"mediaKeyId","2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e","parentId",2815774,"title","Commission rejects proposal to expand voters'‑pamphlet statements for charter candidates","audioSeconds",1678,"startMs",6523000,"endMs",8201000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e&start=6523&end=8201","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e/thumbnail_6523000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6099876/Whatcom-County/Washington/Commission-rejects-proposal-to-expand-voterspamphlet-statements-for-charter-candidates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099876-ca6a750c39f981ee74c656b1e2247200/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447921&Signature=J9U353j6xF4b9cHH92NAPyeHbNa7s-Rl8RhbqJ4ZRbvLxaXHfH8GCzXy2I5QV7i1Ge8tFUe~x4TFdRhfgYH-U~nF7UpyosUs-nec6~UEJC9Op-NBsCufMu7vv3i8f4s-nt7XJp1c7e~oRNsFb8fVgrnBnvaocetSrLqR5H~Cz8h7iQyB5K1SsVXdYupcVs78cgUywr4tpTSurmhKFTuexvc0UDH2PjUroFIlNZvxAyt47XsmcPBlktN6iAe2-q4tGCFNXPHq2u8o85e0CsYlUlxn131woeQ6YJ6SkGou5Z5zR22YSWozixcCrf89b2BBntiAaw0qlzZLU~DvPTWFhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Whatcom County, WA","date","2025-03-28T18:16:30Z","article","The Charter Review Commission considered and rejected a proposal to increase the word limit for county charter‑review candidates in the local voters’ pamphlet so they would have the same number of words as candidates for other local offices.

Commissioner John Muschler moved to send an amendment to the voters that would permit the same number of words for charter candidates as other candidates; Commissioner Joel Fitz Jordan seconded. Muschler said offering more space \"elevates the significance and importance of what we do\" and would let new candidates explain their background and priorities to voters.

Whatcom County Auditor Stacy Hindhorn told the commission the office could implement a higher word count administratively but that printing more pages has a cost. Hindhorn said the additional printing cost associated with tripling the charter candidate space would be about $14,500 every 10 years and that those costs are allocated to participating jurisdictions.

Opponents argued a larger local pamphlet could crowd voters and that the auditor already has statutory or administrative authority to set publication rules. Commissioners stated competing concerns: fairness for candidates, ballot clarity, taxpayer costs and the number of charter amendments the commission may present to voters. One commissioner said the county had tried a 100‑word limit in a prior cycle and found it restrictive; others argued concision helps voters.

After extended discussion, the commission voted by roll call and the motion failed. The clerk announced: \"That motion fails, with 8 no's, 2 excused, and 4 yes's, 1 abstention.\" No subsequent motion to place a different wording limit on the charter itself passed at the meeting.

Next steps: The auditor indicated she could change local voters’ pamphlet administrative rules to increase candidate limits without a charter amendment. Commissioners who opposed placing the change on the ballot cited cost, ballot length and voter fatigue as reasons to leave the administrative rule in place rather than amend the charter.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whatcom County Charter Review Commission Meeting 3.27.2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission debated and then rejected a proposal to give charter review candidates the same statement length as other local candidates; the measure failed on roll call after discussion about cost, ballot crowding and whether the auditor can set the limit by administrative rule.","taxTitle","Whatcom County, Washington","taxId",2976,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099881,"Charter Review Commission approves rules for remote commissioner participation",669,1574000,2243000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e&start=1574&end=2243","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e/thumbnail_1574000.jpg","/articles/6099881/Whatcom-County/Washington/Charter-Review-Commission-approves-rules-for-remote-commissioner-participation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099881-460bb891940bdd66fc71492ab3fc57cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447921&Signature=YJsl5KzAtVHsfzlJ4PvaEvtpCj3utSyZGmxQ~cSkNknbDRw2oVg7bieKtLWs5mmdBsNcrBGsv~xxutJJKToe9JO-Hq0MLdr4mJVtqyDMZ-ica~yo0wyoRaVmAM-tGE1UlJBJEY-Y73uatXw9VIjNj7XsylRr1VsfsQglUazwoD1xKVEi7PezhH6I8o~fy76P~9hhb6EZd6wMIa9jdcd9IX1c9PfhOORa3X6eN-ug67-6j7jWw9Y-3XBRhmSZ52UPvMcGaHKBdOZpzkc1ZBBhaAfxv57x1dWCXaTDnfTj-W9LNqtbTVHsJKOd2vjoCilc0PVDE-9LLtQhwILrfNxCBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission voted to permit future commissioner attendance by Zoom provided basic conditions are met, including visible and audible presence, the ability to raise hands and participate, and prior approval from the chair.

Commissioner Joel Fitz Jordan moved the change and Commissioner Maya Morales seconded the motion. The motion was framed to allow remote participation only when the necessary infrastructure is available and with chair approval; commissioners said the option should be a narrowly used exception rather than a routine substitute for in‑person attendance.

Why it matters: Commissioners said remote access can preserve quorum and allow participation when travel or work obligations prevent in‑person attendance, but several members emphasized that remote participation must preserve transparency and accountability. \"I think it should be the exception to the rule and not...frequently,\" said Commissioner Jackson, reflecting concerns that elected officials owe constituents in‑person presence when possible.

The motion specifies that remote commissioners must be seen and heard, be able to raise their hands and speak, and that the chair must approve remote participation in advance. Staff confirmed commissioners would join as webinar panelists and that the public is served as webinar attendees; the auditor’s office said the county’s webinar platform can show video for panelists. The roll call showed the measure carried with 13 votes in favor and two commissioners excused.

Next steps: Staff will prepare written procedures describing technical and operational requirements before broad use of remote participation. Commissioners discussed presenting a written rule at a future meeting that would set standards for how and when remote attendance may be used.","The commission voted to allow commissioners to attend future meetings by Zoom when certain conditions are met; the motion requires chair approval and suitable infrastructure and passed 13–0 with two excused.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6099886,"Whatcom County auditor: ranked‑choice voting requires system upgrades and sizable upfront costs",111,3679000,3790000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e&start=3679&end=3790","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2815774-1c9cfe7ce4c6413aae83de28e7c6fd1e/thumbnail_3679000.jpg","/articles/6099886/Whatcom-County/Washington/Whatcom-County-auditor-rankedchoice-voting-requires-system-upgrades-and-sizable-upfront-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099886-3e667070088c3b8a343b8a8d685bd130/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447921&Signature=NbrcZdBMiSlyisIlC4NV0aOjXB9g6hXRQS3ZLmHFQjD2gercl-jK2R0JdGESeLwlHiGvO0~0y9~1Ac3dadzXU3csWTCM76fGrkHb9SYL4NJ2pPgay9QKSqmvT-stYggDKmGSCkDcwrHK64BzzLscSQzRs8s9H0mQ2SI5AHLdX7R3eI3qoPWuHE9KzB~NwnZuqVeMzXk5lFnzCYYEQa5TNsztIi~5dN7tM-JWbVREbs8nJamqHKCLcy7thPUVO-6-Fnh0V3mytfGjz1fNyWd5irYDAiUn6iBc-0XtwAecC3AY2f06BV8G04z7HvsMmwPUUgIoEGg3xl7~QuQlu1k8~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Whatcom County Auditor Stacy Hindhorn told the Charter Review Commission on the technical and budgetary steps the county would need to adopt ranked‑choice voting, saying the minimum implementation cost is significant and regulatory certification is required.

Hindhorn said during the commission’s elections deep dive that the county’s current voting vendor is testing a ranked‑choice voting (RCV) module and that Whatcom County could not install the module until the Election Assistance Commission and the Washington secretary of state certify the vendor’s version. \"The minimum cost to implement RCV is $256,000, but the actual and ongoing cost will be much higher,\" Hindhorn said. She told commissioners the vendor estimated a $50,000 charge to install the RCV module and about $14,000 a year in maintenance if the county chose to add the RCV capability.

The auditor’s presentation explained how the county’s election technology is organized: a statewide voter registration database, a mail‑sorting system used to intake ballots and a certified tabulation system. Hindhorn said Clear Ballot’s ClearVote system (ClearVote 2.3 in Whatcom County) is not connected to the county network or the internet, and that the county would not install an uncertified module. She listed practical issues the county would need to resolve before implementation: ballot layout and paper‑size constraints, voter‑intent adjudication procedures, hand‑count audit approaches, voter education, and additional staffing and training needs.

Why it matters: converting to ranked‑choice voting changes not only ballot counting but ballot design, voter outreach and post‑election auditing. Hindhorn said those changes have recurring costs and legal and administrative implications that would fall to the auditor’s office and, ultimately, to taxpayers.

Public commenters at the meeting were split. \"I would like to speak in favor of some form of ranked choice voting,\" said Andy Bree, who described the system as a way to reduce polarization. Nicole Kingborough, identified herself as president of the Whatcom County Association of Realtors and urged the commission to adopt RCV, saying it would \"allow voters to vote with their conscience\" and offer more choices. Several other residents spoke in favor, citing experiences with RCV in other countries and U.S. jurisdictions.

Others opposed or urged caution. Misty Flowers told the commission, \"Ranked choice voting is extremely confusing. Voters need to be more educated, and RCV skews the vote and makes it extremely hard for any of us to know if who we got voted on would actually get in.\" Hindhorn reiterated that adoption would require certified software and additional administrative procedures and noted the county could not move forward until ClearVote version 2.5 (the vendor release that includes an RCV module) completes federal and state certification.

Commissioners asked questions about costs, ballot length and turnout effects. Hindhorn said a fiscal note in the packet addressed major cost categories and noted that implementing RCV is \"not just a software upgrade\" but a change to election procedures that could trigger legal and staffing implications and requires voter education.

The auditor said she would provide follow‑up details on specific cost items, audit procedures and timelines if the commission asked staff to draft a formal proposal for the ballot. Hindhorn said the auditor’s office would not install uncertified equipment and that any RCV module must be certified by the EAC and the Washington secretary of state before use.

Looking ahead: commissioners did not take a formal vote on RCV at the meeting. Hindhorn said she would remain available to answer technical follow‑up questions and to provide more detailed fiscal options if the commission seeks to advance the reform in ordinance or a charter amendment.","Whatcom County Auditor Stacy Hindhorn told the Charter Review Commission that adopting ranked‑choice voting would require certified software, new procedures and substantial funding; public commenters offered mixed views on the reform.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission rejects proposal to expand voters'‑pamphlet statements for charter candidates

Charter Review Commission approves rules for remote commissioner participation

Whatcom County auditor: ranked‑choice voting requires system upgrades and sizable upfront costs