Rating sheet errors

Additional explanation of ratings

Errors on rating sheet

Due to a misunderstanding of the implications of recent court decisions on ballot access, a number of Libertarian candidates (other than those for US Senate, WA Governor, and the 46th Legislative District, Position 2) were not included in the SEAMEC General Election ratings sheet. SEAMEC regrets this deeply.

In an effort to remedy the oversight, below are the grades and ratings for those candidates. These have also been distributed to our email list and to the Seattle Gay News.

Key:
? = not enough information to rate
di = declined interview
U = unable to schedule

Additional Explanation of Ratings

The Steering Committee feels that some ratings and endorsements (or lack thereof) need further explanation. Following are clarifications as to why the Steering Committee rated certain races the way they did.

ROSS (3) vs. REICHERT (2) (8th Congressional District)
The Steering Committee improved Ross's grade from a "2" ("needs improvement") in the primary to a "3" ("meets expectations") in the general election, even though the candidate's positions did not change. He is also endorsed in the general election, whereas SEAMEC endorsed a different candidate in the primary race. The Steering Committee believes that there is a stark difference between Ross and Reichert on LGBT issues and an endorsement is merited. Ross, unlike Reichert, favors marriage equality and other core issues. Some members feel that the "2" rating in the primary election indicated SEAMEC went overboard in reacting to Ross's disturbing comments on abortion access. Others believe that access to abortion is a core LGBT issue and that Ross's position represented a clear difference from others in the Democratic primary race (Heidi Behrens Benedict ("4") and Alex Alben ("3")).

PRIEST (3) vs. HENRY (2) (30th Legislative District)
The Steering Committee gave these numerical ratings because:

• Henry is anti-choice regarding abortion access
• Priest voted for the LGBT employment non-discrimination bill (HB 1809) in the last session of the state legislature, after having historically opposed it.

CHOPP (4) v. GRISWOLD (2) (43rd Legislative District)
Chopp received a "4" ("exceeds expectations") rather than a more favorable "5" ("demonstrates leadership") even though in four previous election cycles he has received the top numerical rating. The Steering Committee was persuaded that as Speaker of the House, Chopp has had the power to leverage support needed to pass the LGBT employment non-discrimination bill (HB 1809) through the state legislature, but he has not done so. A majority of the Steering Committee members believe that Chopp, as House Speaker, could have stopped bills that are important to state senators who blocked HB 1809, but Chopp failed to exercise his power in this way. Griswold received a "2" ("needs improvement"), even though he was quoted extensively in the Seattle Gay News [9/10/04] as strongly favoring marriage equality and other core LGBT issues. The Steering Committee downgraded him for telling the SEAMEC interview panelists that he opposes abortion access after the first trimester.

McINTIRE (4) v. LaROCHE (3) (46th Legislative District)
The Steering Committee bumped up McIntire's grade from a "3" ("meets expectations") in the primary to a "4" ("exceeds expectations") in the general election, even though the candidate's positions did not change. Before the primary election, the candidate was unavailable to interview and the Steering Committee members did not have any information that McIntire had engaged in any activity in recent years that he "exceeded expectations." After the primary, the candidate interviewed with SEAMEC and provided information that, as an elder in his church, he had been involved in filing a lawsuit to advance LGBT issues. The Steering Committee believes this information warranted an improvement in McIntire's numerical rating.

SEBRING (3) v. SANDERS (2) (State Supreme Court)
While the interview panelists were much more impressed with Justice Sanders' answers in the face-to-face interview, the Steering Committee felt that Justice Sanders' actual track record belies his impressive interviewing abilities. Specifically, Justice Sanders' numerical rating sank due to his anti-choice position on abortion, his dissenting view in the case around the legality of the City of Vancouver's domestic partner program for city employees, and his tepid decision in the Vasquez case involving inheritance rights of a gay man after his longtime male partner died. A majority of the Steering Committee believes there is a stark difference between the two candidates in their support of core LGBT issues.

General election ratings (requires Adobe Acrobat, free)

Return to SEAMEC home page