Seattle Times Slams Balducci and Zahilay; Stands Up For Abusive Stalker

The Seattle Times Editorial board has done it again. While surely no one has ever accused this group of having any analytical nous or of prioritizing people over the powerful, they have somehow managed to surprise me once more with their warped values and woefully uninformed statements.

The Editorial Board recently accused two of the region’s most talented and thoughtful public servants - Girmay Zahilay and Claudia Balducci - of “taking the low road.” 

Their big beef? The two King County Councilmembers voted with the rest of the County Council (save one absence) to express “no-confidence” in King County Assessor John Arthur Wilson.

Wilson is under his second restraining order for alleged stalking and abuse. He has tried and failed to get the most recent restraining order removed. This means that a judge has decided three times that Wilson is a credible threat to his accuser. 

Notably, Balducci and Zahilay are both running for King County Executive, as is Wilson. That being said, Wilson was an unserious candidate even before this series of scandals punctured public discourse.  

(That is almost certainly the Seattle Times Editorial Board’s real beef, by the way. They love moderate Republicans and barely-blue-Dems masquerading as bona fide Democratic candidates because they know they can trade on the Seattle Times’ news brand to try to dupe the public into buying into the fiction. That the Ed Board has no chance of elevating a center-right candidate for County Executive surely infuriates them). 

While the Editorial Board was happy to hyperventilate about this symbolic vote, they have had months to address Wison’s horrific behavior, behavior he has not denied and accusations that the court has shown it believes are credible. 

In addition to the three decisions by the judge, Wilson’s (alleged) victim has produced clear evidence of abusive behavior. In response to her text -  “LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!” -  he responded with a chilling “never.” In her report to the court for the first restraining order, she wrote that Wilson contacted the employer of someone she dated to accuse him of sexually assaulting her, and texted her, “He deserves my wrath. Fuck him” and “Tough shit if he gets fired.”

The Editorial Board acknowledges zero of this in their piece. Buried in their screed against Zahilay and Balducci is simply the statement that the “accusations are disturbing.”

The real sin, it seems, to the Seattle Times editorial board, is not the stalking or harassment, not abusing a woman or trying to ruin someone’s life out of jealousy - even though these are demonstrated to be credible claims based on the court’s actions and Wilson’s lack of denial. No, the real sin to the Seattle Times is two candidates participating in a symbolic vote of no-confidence against their opponent. 

To be fair, I understand why politicians duplicating their individual calls to resign with a symbolic vote might garner eyerolls from those who find the machinations of politics tiresome. It is not like the vote was necessary or likely to impact any outcome. The Editorial Board could have found some ground for an argument by pointing to conflicts of interest. But they couldn’t, because they just advocated for Seattle City Councilmembers to embrace voting on issues that present a personal financial conflict of interest. 

There is also a case that the vote was defensible - the County Council is the only body that represents the people of King County, which are the voters that elected Wilson. So weighing in with this resolution as a proxy for the voice of the people between elections is hardly absurd. 

Whatever the merits of the symbolic vote, the vote is just not the big news. The Editorial Board calling this “the low road” and finding the ire to fire off this missive when they haven’t bothered to address Wilson’s menacing behavior suggests that their values are really screwed up. Really, really screwed up.

On top of that, the editorial board went on showcase galling incompetence when it comes to basic civics and the constitution: 

“Still Wilson, like all people, has the right to due process; a right that public officials, especially during this political climate, should understand and respect.”

Which of Wilson’s rights to due process are Balducci and Zahily denying with their vote, exactly?

The right to due process is a right people have that prevents the state from depriving them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Some of these rights are procedural, some are substantive - and there is a large body of cases working out the details of which processes are due for which deprivations. (Unlike the Editorial Board, if you actually want to know about the topic, you can read up here). It’s not like this is a new concept. The seeds were planted in the Magna Carta - over 800 years ago, and first found their way into statue in 1354. 

In no case, ever, do we have a due process right to avoid calls for our resignation from political opponents. Nor do we have a right to not have a legislature make a statement. Nor do we have a right to hold a particular political office. Nor do we have a right to not get recalled by voters. Nor do we have a right to be free from public excoriation for obvious bad behavior. (And in fact, even though Wilson had no due process rights in the matter, in a generous version of the spirit of due process, the County Council chose to delay the vote and notify Wilson that he could show his face and have an opportunity to defend himself!).  

The only actual due process interest Wilson has here is the deprivation of liberty brought by his restraining orders - and these have followed the court’s procedures established for doing so in compliance with the due process clause. Zahilay and Balducci also had nothing to do with these. If someone suggests throwing the guy in jail - well, then he has a due process right to a fair trial- and it should be honored. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. 

The Editorial Board’s statement is nothing but a meaningless red herring.

What does all of this mean? 

1. As I have shown before, The Seattle Times Editorial Board’s values are not our values. 

2. They are unserious political hacks and have no idea what they are talking about.