Election season pop quiz: What is the party preference for Clark County Sheriff Chuck Atkins? How about Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey or prosecuting attorney Tony Golik?
If you don’t know the answers, that speaks well of their performance in offices that should be nonpartisan. We use Atkins, Kimsey and Golik as examples to bring this issue to light because each of them is running unopposed for reelection this year — a fact that also speaks well of their performance.
For the record, Atkins and Kimsey prefer the Republican Party, while Golik prefers the Democratic Party. But as we consider the Nov. 6 election and the races for executive positions in Clark County, we ponder the need for partisanship. In other county races, Republican incumbent Peter Van Nortwick faces fellow Republican Darren Wertz for assessor; Republican incumbent Scott Weber faces Democratic challenger Barbara Melton for clerk; and Alishia Topper faces Robert Hinds for treasurer, with neither candidate declaring a party preference.
The Columbian’s Editorial Board has offered recommendations in each contest, and in so doing we have attempted to ignore partisanship — because party preference should play no role in deciding who is best equipped for overseeing an essential county department. Unlike, say, county council or United States senator, the county executive positions have nothing to do with political ideology. The ability to manage a department, serve taxpayers, and bring expertise to a specific role crosses party lines.
For most counties in Washington, the structure of county government is spelled out in the state constitution. Seven counties have adopted home rule charters through a vote of the public, including Clark County in 2014. The charter, which passed with 53 percent of the vote, turned the county commission into a county council and increased the number of representatives from three to five, including the new position of county chair. It also called for the election of representatives by district rather than countywide.
The charter — which was written by an elected board of freeholders — could have changed executive positions from partisan to nonpartisan, but the lack of such a provision is understandable. Any county charter proposal was destined to be complicated, and other issues took priority over questions of partisanship. But in the future, we hope that voters are given an opportunity to make positions such as treasurer and clerk devoid of party preference.
Other counties that have adopted a charter take varying approaches to the issue. On the Pierce County ballot this year, the auditor’s position is nonpartisan, while the election for prosecuting attorney is partisan. In San Juan County this year, candidates for prosecuting attorney are running with party affiliation, while those for assessor, auditor, clerk, sheriff and treasurer are not.
When Washington was admitted as the 42nd state in 1889 — and for more than a century after that — information about candidates was difficult to come by. The tribalism of party affiliation was important for alerting voters to which candidates best aligned with their political philosophy. But times have changed; there is no shortage of information about candidates, their beliefs or their qualifications.
Because of that, Clark County should move to make its executive positions nonpartisan. When the auditor is working to ensure free and fair elections or when the sheriff is working to protect residents and property, we are more concerned with their ability to do the job rather than their party affiliation.
