KUOW - These 3 WA communities now need state approval for election rule changes 11%
By Jake Goldstein-Street0% Washington State Standard0%
7/7/2026, 10:34:08 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Halo Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,388 faulty-reasoning hits from 959 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.9% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,946 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.40% of the article peer group.
These 3 WA communities now need state approval for election rule changes
FILE: King County Elections employee Josephine Ruff unloads a completely full ballot drop box outside of the Seattle Public Library on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, in Ballard.
KUOW Photo/Megan Farmer
For the first time, three Washington state local governments will need the state’s OK before implementing new voting policies due to their histories of diluting the power of Latino voters.
Yakima County and the cities of Yakima and Pasco won’t be able to change election and voting rules without approval from state Attorney General Nick Brown through a process called “preclearance” under the state Voting Rights Act.
Democratic state lawmakers added the mandate this year over Republican objections, after U.S.
Supreme Court rulings substantially weakened the federal version.
Yakima Mayor Matt Brown is frustrated with the new state oversight.
In a statement, he called it “another example of Olympia creating costly, unnecessary mandates for local governments while centralizing more power in the Attorney General’s Office.”
Speaking in his personal capacity, the mayor added that the new state law raises “serious constitutional concerns,” given the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in April that significantly curtailed the use of race in drawing political district boundaries.
He declined to comment on the possibility of litigation over the state law.
Section 2 of the U.S.
Voting Rights Act allows, or in some cases requires, majority-minority voting districts to increase representation and ensure the votes of people of color aren’t diluted.
The Supreme Court decision, though the court didn’t find Section 2 unconstitutional, is expected to make it very difficult to establish these districts.
The state picked those eastern Washington local governments due to years-old court orders that their at-large local council voting systems weakened opportunities for Latinos to get elected.
In 2016, for example, Pasco officials acknowledged their at-large council districts diluted the power of the city’s Latino voters in the face of a lawsuit from the U.S.
Department of Justice.
A judge in 2014 ordered Yakima to redistrict as a Latino had never been elected to the city council in decades of using the old voting system, despite accounting for one-third of the city’s voting-age population.
The local governments have each created geographic districts, instead of council members representing the entire city or county.
Under the new state law, House Bill 1710, the attorney general’s office has to update the list of jurisdictions that need state preclearance on July 1 of each even-numbered year.
The agency posted the first iteration last week.
Pasco, Yakima, and Yakima County will now need signoff, called a “certificate of no objection,” from the attorney general to change a variety of election-related policies.
These include redrawing district boundaries, restricting interpreter services, or limiting voter materials in languages other than English.
Yakima County signed a consent decree with the U.S.
Department of Justice in 2004 over failing to disseminate Spanish-language election materials.
Any “change that may have the effect of denying, abridging, or diluting the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,” as determined by the attorney general, would also need to be cleared with the state.
The attorney general’s office has to confirm the proposed policy doesn’t violate the state or federal Voting Rights Act, and it “will not diminish the ability” of protected classes “to participate in the political process or to elect their preferred candidates.”
If denied, the jurisdiction can appeal in court.
The state or someone aggrieved by a policy can sue the local government to compel compliance with preclearance requirements.
A lawsuit can also be filed if the attorney general wrongfully allowed such a policy to take effect.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown addresses members of the press after filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at the Attorney General’s Office in Seattle.
Attorney general’s office spokesperson Mike Faulk said Washington “is one of the leading states on voting rights and this advances the obligations many of our public servants hold to preserve them.”
On the other side, Brown, the Yakima mayor, said the requirements will force the city to ask the state before making “routine election-related decisions” and “create more bureaucracy, increase costs, and take resources away from the services residents actually expect local governments to provide.”
Pasco city officials couldn’t immediately provide comment.
Yakima County Auditor Charles Ross said the county is a “policy leader when it comes to ensuring equal voting rights for all Americans” because of its history of federal oversight.
In an email, county Commissioner Kyle Curtis said the Latino community is “an essential part of Yakima County’s identity and future, and every eligible voter should have confidence that their voice can be heard through the democratic process.”
The U.S.
Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, included a federal preclearance requirement for places with histories of racial discrimination in voting.
But the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2013 eliminated it in a decision criticized by some as a dramatic undercutting of the federal law that has led to voter suppression.
The Legislature this year also expanded the state voting rights law to bar local governments from imposing election policies or practices that could result in a “material disparate burden” on the ability of members of a protected class to vote or otherwise participate in the political process.
This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.
Why you can trust KUOW
Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard
More stories from Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard >>
It's Seattle's best sports year yet.
Will Mayor Katie Wilson benefit?
How late can mail-in ballots be counted in Washington, other states?
Speakers
10speakers32%attributed speech654writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageMike Faulk
31 attributed words10% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.