Originally a resolution to denounce political violence, an edited resolution includes all violence, and one critic calls the new version to be “watered-down”
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
A resolution against political violence has been reworded to include all violence and will be presented to the Clark County Council for discussion on Wednesday, but the councilor who proposed the original resolution is wondering if too many changes were made.
“I think the council is complicating things that don’t have to be complicated,” Michelle Belkot said Monday.
Belkot wrote her resolution in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination. She described Kirk as a political and religious leader. The resolution stood against all political violence, including the murder of Kirk.
Other members of the council had issues, including some who did not want Kirk to be singled out, noting there have been other acts of violence against political figures. Another councilor wanted school shootings to be included.
By the end of the week, a new version of the resolution was sent to the councilors for their consideration. It is no longer a resolution against political violence, but of all violence.
Among the edits, no mention of religion regarding Kirk.
“Some would argue that Charlie Kirk was more of a religious leader for young college students than a political figure,” Belkot said. “That’s why I included both in my resolution.”
Other councilors wanted to add the assassinations of the Hortmans from Minnesota, which occurred in June.
It should be noted that the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution honoring Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, and her husband, while also denouncing political violence. Belkot said if another member of the Clark County Council had brought up a similar resolution for the Hortmans, she would have supported it.
The resolution that Belkot submitted was created in the wake of the death of the founder of Turning Point USA.
“This was dedicated to Charlie Kirk,” Belkot said.
The council will discuss the latest version of the resolution during Council Time at 1 p.m. Wednesday. Public comment will be heard prior to the discussion.
“I would like to have the public weigh in,” Belkot said.
Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County said he will be there. He contends that the new version is “watered-down.” He also expects to send out an email to followers of Reform Clark County. Anderson’s objections to the new version of the resolution:
- Removes Kirk’s religious role entirely. His murder was an attack on a faith leader as much as a political one.
- Downplays the Bill of Rights, weakening the focus on free speech and religion.
- Dilutes the message by adding unrelated tragedies.
- Changes “political violence” to “all violence,” gutting the original resolution’s core point.
- Delays presentation to Oct. 21 when we need this passed now for impact. (The new resolution, according to a document from the county, would take effect Oct. 21 if the resolution passes.)
- Ignores the widespread celebration, justification, or downplaying of Kirk’s assassination. No matter your politics, we need a clear condemnation, and the new version fails at that.
The amended resolution can be found here:
https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-09/resolution-condemning-political-violence_.pdf
The original resolution can be found here: Proposed Resolution.pdf – Google Drive
One won’t sign the current version, four won’t sign the first version, five hundred and fifty thousand folks outside the chambers shrug their shoulders and say move on and do something for the people. But that doesn’t get your supporters worked up.
Do conversations and words matter, especially from elected and political leaders? Your statement is deeper than ‘this is a waste of time’ argument. Your words are an attempt to minimize the importance of taking moral stances against political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Words matter. Making clear statements of condemnation matters, and choosing complacency about political violence is a passive-aggressive statement condoning such activity.
I’m with the 550,000. Is this what the Clark County Council is there for? Isn’t there some pressing Council business to attend to? Of course we all detest violence, political and othrwise. That’s a given, no resolution needed. Let’s move on.
Did you feel the same for the Pride Resolution a few months ago? Dismissing the importance of denouncing political violence is a passive-aggressive approach to support political violence. Words matter. Standing against evil political violence is a conversation worth having.
Charlie Kirk was NEVER a politician. He was college dropout who figured out hate speech made money
I’m not bashing the college dropout factor. College is not for everyone. But can we please stop with the lies of him being a political figure. He knew what made money because he learned it from the man currently trying to be a dictator.
His murder was atrocious, just like ANY other ordinary person’s murder would be.
Sure, Charlie Kirk was Not an ELECTED Politician…but a politician nonetheless!
My sixth grade civics lesson taught me that “…the definition of politics is the interaction of people, one with another, in relation to: money, power, and things…” A reading of The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word politics, “2…political affairs or business; esp : competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership…”
Charlie Kirk provided leadership by advancing free speech and civically challenging those whom opposed his platforms….engaging in those dialogues should not denigrate into a literal “do or die” outcome.
Those whom oppose free expression of thought by retaliating with violence are cowards of the highest order. Plain and simple!