A SPECIAL INDEPENDENCE DAY FOR PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS

by | Jul 3, 2018 | General, Politics

Port Townsend and Jeffco Contracts Requiring
Payment of Union Dues Now Unenforceable 

Pop quiz: If you belong to a collective bargaining unit in Jefferson County, and if that collective bargaining unit took money from you to support the reelection of President Trump, would you be:
A – Happy
B – Unhappy
C – Indifferent
Given the results of the 2016 presidential election, my hunch is that most people would choose Response B because a lot of people in Jefferson County do not support the President. Ergo, they probably do not want their hard-earned money used to support someone with whom they disagree.
To those of you who chose Response B be assured, for whatever it’s worth, that I have your six on this issue. The very idea of taking away somebody’s money and using it to promote something they don’t like is a cringeworthy violation of the First Amendment. It’s not free speech; it’s rather expensive speech and it’s financed by forcing people to pay-up regardless of their beliefs.
That’s why last week’s Supreme Court decision in the Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees case is so important. This particular case ruled that a 41-year-old Illinois law which forced employees who do not belong to a union, but are represented by a collective bargaining unit, to give their money to that union.
While this decision does not affect union members at the Port Townsend mill or other private employer unions, it does affect anybody who belongs to a union representing government employees, school teachers, fire and police personnel and so forth.
This decision frees non-union members from being compelled to give their money to a collective bargaining unit in support of something they oppose. This is good news for opponents of President Trump who would not want their paychecks shrunk by force so the money could be used to support the Administration. It is also good news for the workers who like what the President is doing and don’t want a portion of their wages used to undermine policies with which they agree.
It turns out that Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan disagrees with me. She would apparently be happy with unions in Jefferson County and elsewhere supporting Trump with money taken from people who oppose him. Kagan, in her dissent, goes so far as to argue that this decision amounts to, “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
Maybe it’s just me but does anyone else find it peculiar that Kagan would make such a statement given her political leanings? After all, Slate Magazine described Kagan as, “the most influential liberal justice,” on the court. So why is she articulating a position that is in such stark contrast with the greatest liberal Democrat icon of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
The public sector unions that want to take money from non-union members were vociferously opposed by President Franklin Roosevelt. He never even bothered to get around to whether such unions should be able to take money from non-members. He said flat-out that public sector unions are wrong.
When asked by a reporter in 1937 whether he supported unions for government employees, Roosevelt was unequivocal in his response saying, “Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise.”
Perhaps the time has come for Jefferson County Democrats, liberals, progressives and others cut from similar cloth to revisit Roosevelt’s values and take a stand by advocating the elimination public sector unions altogether. That’s what FDR would want. Given that the issue of campaign finance was raised at the June 24 Honesty Forum in Port Ludlow, it’s a fair question for the candidates running for office.
Scott Hogenson lives in Jefferson County. He is a former Teamster and a former member of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union.
Editor’s Note
The Janus decision will have a substantial impact on the area’s public sector employees. We took a look at a few of their union contracts.
The city’s contract requires that all its employees join and pay dues to General Teamster’s Local Union 589.  The contract recognizes only religious First Amendment rights in protecting an employee being forced to join.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment’s free speech and freedom of association clauses mandate that anyone having an objection to joining a public-sector union may not be compelled to do so.
The City’s union contract oddly required employees with a religious objection to union membership to give the equivalent of their dues to a non-religious or other charity selected—get this–not by the employee, but by the Teamsters and the City.  If they could not agree, the Washington Department of Licensing and Industry would determine the charity to be paid each month by that employee. That clause is certainly illegal now.
Jefferson County has the same clause in its contracts with Teamster Local 589.  The Port Townsend School District also has a similar clause in its contract with the Port Townsend Education Association.  That clause required the union to participate in the selection of the charity to be paid.  The school district’s contract with the Service Employees International Union and its Local 925 incorporates a similar clause but allows the employee objecting to forced union membership on religious grounds to steer her dues equivalent to a charity of her choice.
Here is the pertinent clause from the City’s Teamster’s contract:

Here is the equivalent clause from the School District’s agreement with the PTEA:

 

GLIMMERS OF HOPE FOR THE HADLOCK SEWER

GLIMMERS OF HOPE FOR THE HADLOCK SEWER

by | Jun 28, 2018 | Politics

Large Federal Infrastructure Bills Could Provide Funding

Local and state governments have been unable to pay for the critically needed Port Hadlock-Irondale sewer project.  At least another $30 million must come from somewhere.  It could come from Washington, D.C.
A trillion-dollar infrastructure fund for projects in poor rural and urban areas was introduced this month by a diverse, bi-partisan group of lawmakers.
Introduced by Reps. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., William Lacy Clay Jr., D-Mo., and Ted Budd, R-N.C., the Generating American Income and Infrastructure Act would require the Agriculture Department to sell distressed assets and the Treasury to use the proceeds to fund infrastructure projects in poor communities.
Kelly is a member of the Republican Study Committee.  Clay belongs to the Congressional Black Caucus. Budd belongs to the Republican Freedom Caucus.
The bill comes at a time when the Trump Administration and Senate Democrats are pushing their own infrastructure proposals.
The GAIN Act would generate an estimated $2 trillion.  Half would go towards paying down the national debt.  The other half would go to projects in predominantly poor Black, Hispanic and rural white communities.  By selling troubled assets, the act also keeps the government from losing more money on sinking investments.
Poor Rural Communities
Irondale and Port Hadlock are poor communities.  Their income and wealth levels are far below those of the rest of the county, the state and the nation.  Their poverty rate at times has been significantly higher than the nation’s.  Many people in Port Townsend’s affluent neighborhoods have little idea of the poverty they would encounter if they left S.R. 19 and wandered through the Irondale’s hidden lanes.

The area has lost businesses and jobs because of the lack of a sewer.  Current businesses are constrained by the limitations of septic systems. Growth plans have been shelved. Other businesses have been required by the county government to limit hours of operation and restrict their operations to fit limited septic capacity.

Yet this is supposed to be an urban growth area, according to the county’s comprehensive plan.  This is also the area with the greatest prospect of supporting affordable housing, due to land availability and relatively lower costs.  According to four-term county commissioner David Sullivan, the Hadlock-Irondale sewer project isthe key to the affordable housing situation county-wide.
Commissioner Sullivan is not alone in his assessment of the critical importance of a simple wastewater treatment project.
“The Irondale-Hadlock sewer is essential to the local economy and making housing more affordable,” U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer told the PT Free Press.

Not Enough Money to Build

At the cost of a million dollars, the sewer has been engineered.  The county has obtained the land.  The county has deemed the project “shovel ready.”
If only there were enough money.
The current projected cost—pending a possible re-engineering—is about $45 million. The county reports it has secured $13.4 million and is counting on state and federal sources for the balance.
We asked our Congressional delegation what they have been doing to secure federal funding for the critically needed sewer project and where they stood on the GAIN Act.
Representative Kilmer
“I’ve been working every funding angle to help get the project the funds it needs so businesses can start growing,” Kilmer told PT Free Press. “I’ve connected the county commissioners with state and federal advisors and resources who have helped navigate the over-complicated government funding process. As Vice Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, I’ve pushed to increase USDA Rural Wastewater Treatment grants over the last several years so that this project, and a project with a similar challenge in Kitsap County can secure more federal funds.”

As for the GAIN Act, he said, “I’m encouraged by any bipartisan bill that would direct new federal funds to rural infrastructure projects. I’m taking a close look at this bill to determine how much revenue it could generate, and whether communities in our region could use that revenue.”

“On a broader level,” he added, “this challenge exemplifies the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive infrastructure package. The leaders of our country can’t drag their feet anymore on infrastructure investment because it’s hurting the economy in our neck of the woods. I’ve used my seat as Vice Chair for Policy of the New Democrat Coalition to develop a policy agenda that would help projects like this one start moving. I’m working with members of both parties to invest in our communities and help bring the infrastructure we need to grow our economy.”

Senator Maria Cantwell
Bryan Watt, a spokesperson for Senator Cantwell had this to say:
“On the Irondale-Hadlock sewer infrastructure project Senator Cantwell’s outreach team has meet with Jefferson County folks about helping get this project done and identifying a potential funding stream.
“Earlier this year Senator Cantwell and several of her colleagues introduced a major infrastructure plan that invests billions to modernize airports and waterways, sewer systems, invest in affordable housing, rebuild crumbling schools and VA hospitals, overhaul road and bridge repairs, equip rural communities with high-speed internet, revitalize main streets across the country, modernize the electric grid and energy infrastructure, and more.
“Specifically, the bill includes $23 billion dollars for water infrastructure through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Rural Development Water and Waste Water Grant Program, which provides funding for such projects in small towns and rural communities under 10,000 in population.”
Senator Cantwell’s legislation relies on repeal of tax cuts passed by Congress and strongly supported by President Trump.
Senator Patty Murray
“There’s no doubt,” Senator Murray told Port Townsend Free Press, “our country needs to do more to address our aging infrastructure, which is why I have pushed for significant infrastructure investments over the years and even created a program that allows communities to apply for competitive grants to get big projects across the finish line. I stand ready to help communities across our state including Port Hadlock because improving and maintaining infrastructure is so important to the health and safety of families, as well as to local economies.”
Jefferson County Cannot Afford Another Miss
The Obama administration poured a trillion dollars into the economy to counteract its inherited recession.  It is not too long ago to remember President Obama touting “shovel ready” projects across the country that would be completed thanks to his stimulus package.  A major focus of that stimulus was infrastructure investment.  Despite having a friendly Democrat administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, our delegation, and our local leaders, for whatever reason, did not seize the opportunity and secure funding for the Hadlock wastewater system.  Grants of hundreds of millions of dollars were dished out.  Years later many have been forgotten with little or nothing to show.  Huge losses were deemed acceptable because the government’s first goal was stimulus. A $30-40 million grant for a sewer system in a poor community needing jobs and housing—it should have been a gimme.
Mr. Kilmer was not yet in the House.  He now may have a chance to seize an opportunity that slipped by before.  He can be one of those Congressional heroes remembered for generations because of his tangible legacy. The “Derek Kilmer Sewer Plant” could be a terrific monument to public service that really made a difference.
The GAIN Act presents a possible second great stimulus opportunity that cannot be missed.  As Rep. Kilmer noted, we should be encouraged by its bi-partisan backing.
Our delegation could do nothing more important for Jefferson County than to secure the funding that would launch the Tri-Area into an era of prosperity.  Maybe they can give Trump something he wants to get something we need back home.
President Trump has already derided Democrats’ plans for rolling back his tax cuts. The infrastructure bill backed by Senator Cantwell is likely going nowhere.  She needs to change her thinking.
Similarly, President Trump’s infrastructure plan, which relies mostly on increasing gas tax and ramping up state and local investment, faces its own hurdles, including from within his own party.
The GAIN Act has the advantage of paying for itself and at the same time shielding the government from losing more money on bad assets.  It appeals to conservatives in paying down the debt while building infrastructure to support economic growth.  It appeals to Democrats because it targets Black and Hispanic communities and also poor white communities, where Democrats are struggling to hang on.
For the sake of our community, our congressional delegation must build bridges to the Trump administration.  Far more important to our community than the ideological battles waged inside the Beltway is an unsexy, mundane investment in pipes and pumps in Jefferson County’s blue collar communities.
Voters have relied on intermediaries to press our state and congressional representatives to secure funding for the sewer.  This issue is so important we need to communicate with them directly.
Here is contact information for our Congress folks.  Let them hear from you directly. Encourage them.  Write a letter.  Don’t use email—it is too easily ignored.  Give them a call.  Or better yet, fax them.  Old fashioned faxes get attention:
Rep. Derek Kilmer

1520 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5916
F:  (202) 226-3575

Senator Patty Murray

154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2621
Toll Free:  (202) 866-481-9186
Fax:  (202) 224-0238

Senator Maria Cantwell
511 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3441
Fax:  (202) 228-0514

Is Opposing Donald Trump’s Economic Policies Racist?

by | Jun 26, 2018 | Politics

Port Townsend’s Women’s March: Bigoted or Detached from Reality?

 

[Editor’s note:  We have notified the Port Townsend Women’s March organization that we would be happy to publish their response to this commentary]

The Congressional Black Caucus is not to be trifled with. Established in 1971 to amplify the legislative agenda of African American lawmakers and their constituents, the CBC is “committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”

I’ve spent enough time on Capitol Hill to know that one gets between the CBC and its objectives at their peril. To cross the CBC in its mission to help blacks achieve the American Dream is to invite accusations of racism

It logically follows, using the CBC’s modus operandi, that opposing programs that increase jobs for blacks would be racist. Railing against policies that result in higher wages and more job opportunities for African Americans would be racist. That’s just how name-calling politics works.

If we’re going to be philosophically consistent–if not intellectually honest–it stands to reason that opposing the economic policies of President Trump makes one a racist.

The economic policies of the Trump administration have made business expansion a lot easier, meaning more blacks (and other people) are finding jobs. The June unemployment figures show a black jobless rate of 5.9%, the lowest since data on black unemployment have been collected. Unemployment is also dramatically lower for Americans of other racial and ethnic groups.
Wages for blacks and others in the workforce are finally starting to rise and data collected by the Society for Human Resource Management shows even higher wage growth through 2018 as corporations plan to further hike wages and salaries. These same companies also report plans to accelerate hiring this year.
President Trump’s policies have reduced illegal immigration to its lowest level in 17 years, which helps black Americans find and keep jobs, especially young African Americans working in low-skill or entry level positions. As explained by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., emeritus professor of labor economics at Cornell University,  “Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market.” The president’s immigration policies, which amount to little more than enforcing existing law, are making it easier for blacks to find jobs by decreasing employment competition from illegals.
Free market economies are inherently dynamic so it’s foolish to give Trump all the credit for record low black unemployment, rising wages and more job opportunities. But he certainly deserves much credit for the results of his policies. What’s fascinating to contemplate is that if these policies emanated from the Congressional Black Caucus rather than the Trump White House, anyone who opposed them would be branded a bigot and a racist.
Taking this in context, I recalled a January, 2018 news photo of an essentially all-white crowd of thousands on Water Street in Port Townsend.  They excoriated the president for being a racist, among other sins. Those whose efforts improve the lives of blacks are not ordinarily described as racists. Their charges of racism against President Trump are an indicator of just how detached from reality so much of Port Townsend can be.
This name-calling is not reserved for the president. I have been called a racist, a homophobe and a xenophobe by virtue of my five-month association with the Trump campaign between July and November, 2016. It’s weird because none of my black friends think I’m a racist, none of my gay friends think I’m homophobic and none of my Muslim, Hispanic and Asian friends think I’m xenophobic or a religious bigot. But that’s just how name-calling politics works.
Are Port Townsend liberals and progressives who oppose the economic policies of President Trump racists? Personally, I am loathe to use such incendiary language over simple policy disagreements. But one must wonder about the motivation of those who fight relentlessly against policies that are demonstrably improving the lives of millions of African Americans.

Responses to Scott’s columns of no more than 700 words may be sent to ptfreepress@gmail.com.  The author’s full name, address and telephone number must be included.

CANDIDATE FORUM LONG ON GRIPES, SHORT ON ANSWERS

CANDIDATE FORUM LONG ON GRIPES, SHORT ON ANSWERS

by | Jun 25, 2018 | Politics

The big thing that emerged from Sunday’s Honesty Forum in Port Ludlow, where all four candidates for the open seat on the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners appeared on the same stage, was that most of them are better at griping about problems than solving them.

Shared concerns are invaluable in connecting politicians with voters. But most people already know what the problems are. We don’t need to be told that jobs, growing the tax base, and housing are problems. What voters want are concrete solutions, which were in short supply Sunday.

Greg Brotherton (D) said he wants to “make it easier to build houses and businesses.” But he then confessed, “I don’t want to be a disruptor” on the Board of County Commissioners. How does one go about transforming an arcane system of regulations, ordinances, codes and other impediments to growth without being disruptive? A prerequisite for reversing an entrenched bureaucracy is being disruptive, which Brotherton wishes not to be.

Ryan McAllister (D) opined, “our biggest export is young people,” after explaining that he opposes the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort because it, “does not reflect the character of our rural county.” I do not know why young people are leaving Jefferson County but it’s probably not because of plans to build a resort in Brinnon. A big box store like Home Depot or WalMart may not reflect the character of the county but it would offer young people good paying jobs and opportunities for career advancement.

The rub, according to McAllister, is that “you have the people that grew up here, lifelong Jefferson County residents, who want to get out of the county,” competing with the interests of, “people like me, who moved here when I was a teenager with my wife.” Perhaps that’s true, but it raises the question whether we want to run the county in the interests of aging transplants rather than native residents.

Craig Durgan (D) did a better job of speaking in a straight line, focusing much of his remarks on how we, “desperately need to bring businesses to Jefferson County,” particularly around Port Hadlock. He offered some solutions. Unfortunately, Durgan has branding and credibility problems. After several unsuccessful campaigns in recent years, first as a Republican and later as an Independent, Durgan told me he became a Democrat on May 19.

He said after the forum that he’s preparing to reach out to organized labor to help fund his campaign. He mentioned the Olympic Peninsula Building Trades Council as a potential donor.  Durgan told me this after declaring during the forum that he supports getting outside-money out of politics. When I asked how one squares opposition to outside money in politics with asking unions for campaign cash, Durgan was succinct. “It’s the reality,” he said.

Jon Cooke (R) managed to make his points in a linear fashion and to good effect. His positions are simple; he wants to grow the county’s tax base through business expansion by relaxing codes and regulations. Cooke described himself as a man who, “works better with people than deciding what size rock to use for a road.” In that statement, Cooke offered his vision of governing. He knows that focusing on the minutiae of bureaucracy is a fool’s errand and he won’t sweat the small stuff.

As a political newcomer, Cooke lacks the polish of his competitors.  What he lacks in slickness he makes up for in command of the issues, clearly articulating a solution for the major obstacle to growth. “The biggest area would be in the Hadlock area, getting the sewer in, and then building up around that,” Cooke said.

Compare this patently un-sexy issue with the Internet. McAllister and Brotherton are making high-speed Internet a core issue in their campaigns, which aligns with the strategy of congressional Democrats who want to use Internet de-regulation as a wedge issue in the midterm elections. McAllister lists high speed Internet as one of his three main objectives, while Brotherton claimed, “rural Internet creates jobs.”

But which is a higher priority, Internet or sewers? “I wouldn’t label one or the other more important,” said Brotherton after the forum. Fast Internet is a wonderful thing,but Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs probably puts a higher premium on a place to go to the bathroom and somewhere to flush it than streaming Netflix without buffering. I’d be curious to see who volunteers to pitch a new business to locate in Jefferson County by explaining, “You have to use composting toilets because we can’t get a sewer project through.  But we have Internet!”

Politicians know they must defend everything they say so it’s unsurprising most aren’tyet offering concrete solutions. They’re not likely to take that step unless forced into it. Only when Jefferson County voters demand more than talking points will we begin to get sensible answers to problems facing the county.

(Editor’s note:  Scott Hogenson has a long list of accomplishments and affiliations. We are honored to have him as a contributor. In the interest of disclosure, we provide this partial bio:  Scott Hogenson is president of Hogenson Communications, LLC, a public relations consultancy. He moved to Jefferson County in 2017 after 25 years in Washington, DC, where he worked on four presidential campaigns as a senior member of the Republican National Committee Press Office. He is also a contributor to the Jodi Wilke for State Representative campaign.  He has been a member of the academic staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he lectured in the School of Journalism and served as managing editor for the Wisconsin Public Radio News Network. Scott has also been a contributing editor for National Public Radio in Washington, D.C., a broadcast editor for United Press International, and a news director for radio stations in Virginia and Texas.  The photo used above appeared on the McAllister campaign Facebook page.)

The Bernie Problem

by | Jun 20, 2018 | Politics

I like Bernie Sanders. He’s something of an anomaly in American politics because he’s one of the most honest politicians on the scene, not just today but going back decades. It took a lot of courage for Sanders to declare himself a Socialist when running for mayor of Burlington, Vermont in 1981.  He went on to win four terms in that office. By the time I moved to Vermont in 1989, Sanders was already a political legend in the state because with Bernie Sanders, what you see is what you get.
I respect that.

But Bernie Sanders is making things uncomfortable for Jefferson County Democrats. Like many of their fellow believers nationally, they belong to a party in search of an identity and message.  The local political landscape makes that exponentially more difficult.

It’s no stretch to call today’s Jefferson County Democrat Party the party of Bernie. In the county’s 2016 presidential primary, Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton, 54% to 45%, a hair’s breadth from a landslide.

So where is the county’s favorite son on the big issues? We got glimpse on June 13, when Sanders addressed a gathering of progressives in Washington, D.C.  He proudly proclaimed, “A few years ago, just a few years ago, and I want you to think about it, many of the ideas that we talked about were thought to be fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas. Well, you know what? Because of your efforts those ideas are now mainstream American ideas.”

It was a pretty stunning statement. He may be correct that his radical, extremist, fringe ideas are becoming mainstream. There are certainly many enclaves of Bernie supporters across the country in which this is true but Jefferson County is not one of them. If anything, the people who live here are moving away from Sanders’ political vision.

We saw this in November, 2017, when voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 1, the proposal to further tax home owners to fund a plan promising to pay for affordable housing. Unlike the Sanders-Clinton primary of 2016, the Proposition 1 vote one year later was a landslide of epic proportions, with the measure going down to defeat with a68.2% “no” vote. The result was more than a profound embarrassment for Jefferson County Democrats; it entirely disrupted the political calculus of party stalwarts.

Recognition of some of this anti-Big Government, low-tax sentiment is reflected by all three Democrats running for the open seat on the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. All have rejected, to varying degrees, the manifesto of Bernie Sanders and the local Democrat Party through their criticism of onerous land use regulations and restrictions.  They are all calling for increased freedom for local property owners and developers. I’m not privy to discussions among local Democrat bigwigs but it’s a good bet that shrinking government is not part of their platform.

So which Democrat Party will emerge in Jefferson County this election? It could be a party that heeds the sentiments of people who want to keep more of what they earn through their labor and live on their land without the heavy hand of government intruding at every turn. It could also be the party of Bernie in which government foists a central command and control structure on taxpayers, taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not.

More to the point, will Democrats be responsive to the more than 2/3 of voters who rejected another hike in their property taxes last year or the 54% of party loyalists who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary and supported his, “fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas”?

Many of our friends and neighbors are coming to the same conclusion as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who observed, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  We just won’t know how many agree with Thatcher until the votes are counted.

DEMOCRAT HOUSE INCUMBENTS CRUSHING REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS IN FUNDRAISING

DEMOCRAT HOUSE INCUMBENTS CRUSHING REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS IN FUNDRAISING

by | Jun 19, 2018 | Politics

GOP Hopes for Turning the Peninsula Red Face Money Problems

 

Inspired by the historic victory of Republican Jim Walsh in the 19th Legislative District, the Washington House Republican Caucus has visions of the rest of the Olympic Peninsula turning red.  Democrats with the advantage of incumbency stand in the way, armed with a huge cash advantage.

Republican Jim McEntire, a former Clallam County Commissioner, is challenging four-term incumbent Democrat Steve Tharinger for the 24th District Position 2 seat in the House of Representatives.  McEntire failed in 2010 to beat Tharinger in the Democrat’s inaugural run for the legislature.  Tharinger is also a former Clallam County Commissioner and chairs the powerful House budget committee.

Jodi Wilke, a nurse, is in her first political run against incumbent Mike Chapman for the other 24th District seat in the Legislature.  We reported on that contest here.
The 24th includes Jefferson, Clallam and part of Grays Harbor counties.  Republicans hope to repeat what happened in 2016 in Grays Harbor County in the rest of the 24th.

The 19th Goes Red

In 2016, despite a $100,000 fundraising disadvantage, Republican Jim Walsh upset incumbent Democrat Teresa Purcell. He was the first Republican elected in the 19th since the mid-1980s.

The economic struggles of the area helped him over the top. And then there was Trump.

The 19th covers parts of Grays Harbor, Lewis, Cowlitz, Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties.

Three of those counties—Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Cowlitz—voted for Trump. Trump’s victory in Grays Harbor was the first Republican win there since Herbert Hoover.
Republicans see the 24th District suffering the same symptoms that turned the 19th red: unemployment higher than national and state levels, low incomes, lack of job opportunities, a sense that their needs are being ignored in Olympia and Washington, and resentment against Seattle elites.
Clallam does elect Republicans.  Jefferson has not for decades.  By most measures, it is the third most liberal county in the state after King and San Juan.  But the taxpayer revolt that soundly defeated Prop 1, a property tax increase to fund housing programs, has given Republicans some hope.  They aim to peel off enough Jefferson County votes outside of Port Townsend to keep the liberal, high-voting enclave from deciding the race.
The absence of a Trump effect in Clallam and Jefferson counties does not bode well for GOP hopes.  Trump lost Clallam.  In Jefferson he could not garner even 30% of the vote.

Money Woes for GOP Challengers

Tharinger currently holds a war chest of about $52,000 in cash.  McEntire has raised only $17,600 and has already spent $11,400, according to the latest Public Disclosure Commission data.

McEntire has raised 2/3 of his funds from individuals. The House Republican caucus has kicked in $5,000.

Tharinger’s contributions show the advantages of a four-term incumbency and chairmanship of the powerful budget committee. He started with $16,000 in the bank and has raised $36,000 for this race. Less than a third of those contributions come from individuals. More than a third comes from political action committees, with most of the rest from businesses and $3,100 from unions.

Tharinger has spent only $1,000. He has barely begun campaigning.

In our previous report on the Chapman-Wilke race, we reported how Chapman has been piling up a huge number of endorsements and held a 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. We understated that advantage by omitting what he had in the bank at the start. Based on current PDC data, Chapman has available about $54,000 in cash. He also has barely begun his campaign.

Chapman’s opponent, Wilke, has raised $15,000, and already spent $8,000.

The House Republican Caucus has yet to contribute anything to her campaign.

Right now, McEntire and Wilke are quite visible and active. Their signs are already up and they are busy with campaign events and appearances across the district. They have not faced much competition for the spotlight. That will change when Tharinger and Chapman hit the trail and start spending their piles of campaign cash.