League of Women Voters of Clark County said they invited experts from all political stripes to participate but only four responded to be on the panel for the discussion titled: Election 2025: What is the Clark County Charter?

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

A lot has changed in the five years since the last time Clark County voters were asked to elect members of the Charter Review Commission.

That includes the way the League of Women Voters of Clark County has informed the public about the charter.

Last month, the League held a panel discussion: Election 2025: What is the Clark County Charter?

It turned out, a number of this year’s conservative candidates wondered why the panel seemed to be taking a political side. Instead of informing the public on just what is a charter, or how a charter works, more than one conservative candidate said panelists took shots at Republicans and insisted that the charter cannot dictate policy.

“The people did not hear a balanced presentation of what a charter can do,” said Liz Cline, a commissioner candidate for District No. 4, Position No. 1

Sally Carpenter Hale, communications chair and a member of the Board of Directors for the League of Women Voters of Clark County, said that the organization did invite former review board commissioners of all political stripes. 

“The four who appeared on the panel were the only ones who accepted our invitation,” Carpenter Hale said. “Others declined or did not respond.”

The League of Women Voters wanted former review board commissioners who were not running for a position this year.

More than once, panelists talked about the “shenanigans” going on within the Board of County Commissioners before the charter was adopted in the 2014 election. Republicans were in control of the board at the time. (The board is now called the Clark County Council.) There was another moment when a panelist spoke disparagingly about an unnamed state senator, a reference to another Republican.

“They were making all kinds of accusations about people who were not there to defend themselves. They made a lot of insinuations without saying what or who,” said Jill Ross, candidate for District No. 3, Position No. 1. “It was very one-sided. There is no question.”

On policy, to some, it seemed like the panel was trying to preemptively stop or slow down the campaign agendas of many of the conservative candidates. For example, conservative candidates have noted that they want to take a look at the funding for public safety. The panel said that is not the purpose of the charter, that ideologies should not be in the purview of the charter.

Yet, the last Charter Review Commission asked Clark County voters to approve a DEI position within the county, asked for a preamble to the charter that would have included a land acknowledgement statement, and asked to bring ranked-choice voting to the county. Those three items, the conservatives say, are left-leaning ideologies. (Those three were all rejected by voters, by the way.)

Brad Benton, a candidate for District No. 5, Position No. 1, said asking the Clark County Council to find a way to prioritize public safety should be within the purview of the charter. That should not even be a conservative-liberal battle, he noted.

“The people of Clark County understand that there is an issue with public safety. We are one of the most understaffed counties in the state,” Benton said, referring to the sheriff’s office. “The people of Clark County want that fixed.”

He said the panel kept saying the charter can’t do this or that.

“So it can do stuff like ranked-choice voting or adding a preamble, or adding a councilor district, but it can’t address funding priorities?” Benton said. 

“That is the purpose of the charter, to be reviewed every five years, to see what needs to be addressed,” Benton answered. “As long as it doesn’t break state law, it can do things. Let’s at least discuss it.”

Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County said he warned the League of Women Voters before the Sept. 8 event that the panelists had an agenda.

“It wasn’t a surprise, sadly,” Anderson said. “The League of Women Voters has a clear track record of being partisan and not protecting the non-partisan principle. What we saw on that panel was just raw politics.”

Carpenter Hale noted again that the league did not get a response from anyone but the four who served as panelists. 

“Some Republican candidates refuse to participate because they believe the League has become partisan,” Carpenter Hale said. “Our core mission is to empower voters and defend democracy. Voting and democracy are not partisan issues.”

She encourages all sides of an issue to participate.

“We’d really like to change the perception,” she said, referring to Anderson’s charge.

Without at least some representation from the right, some candidates think the event should have been canceled.

“I don’t think they should have moved ahead without getting a more balanced panel,” Ross said.

“If they aren’t going to have a non-partisan panel, don’t have it,” Cline said.

To watch the panel, go to the CVTV Election Page for videos on demand: Election 2025 | Clark/Vancouver Television

Five years ago, the League of Women Voters of Clark County had individual interviews with charter review candidates. Carpenter Hale noted, however, that it was during the pandemic. There were no public forums, so instead the League of Women Voters interviewed the candidates and posted those interviews on the internet.

This year, there are 35 candidates. Carpenter Hale said it would have been impractical to bring all 35 together for a forum or a debate. Instead, the League of Women Voters encouraged all candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Those answers will be available Friday, Oct. 10, on the Vote 411 link on the League’s website: Home – League of Women Voters of Clark County

Clark County Today has also reached out to the candidates. Clark County Today will begin its series of articles on Charter Review Commission candidates soon.

---

Also read:

• 
  Republicans prepare for ‘train wreck’ as Democrats eye new taxes to fill $2B gap
  Washington lawmakers face a $2 billion deficit as Republicans warn of tax proposals they say will worsen a mounting budget crisis.
• 
  Letter: A misleading headline about a misleading initiative
  Battle Ground resident Gary Obermeyer argues that Initiative 26-126 would restrict voting access rather than improve election integrity.
• 
  POLL: Do you support Vancouver’s decision to restore open public comment at every council meeting starting in 2026?
  Vancouver will restore open public comment at every council meeting in 2026 after years of limiting remarks to agenda items.
• 
  Opinion: Washington is bleeding taxpayers and now a State Representative wants to make it worse
  Mark Harmsworth argues that a proposed statewide payroll tax would worsen Washington’s ongoing loss of jobs, businesses, and economic competitiveness.
• 
  Opinion: WEA secret meeting about opposing the initiatives gets leaked
  An opinion from Let’s Go Washington criticizes a leaked Washington Education Association meeting about opposing LGW’s initiatives on girls’ sports and school transparency.