Letter: League of Women Voters wants to hear from all candidates

League of Women Voters of Clark County President Sharon Brown responds to previous letter to the editor by area resident Kris Greene.
League of Women Voters of Clark County President Sharon Brown responds to previous letter to the editor by area resident Kris Greene.

League of Women Voters of Clark County President Sharon Brown responds to previous letter to the editor

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

The League of Women Voters of Clark County would like to respond to a recent letter to the editor from Kris Greene voicing concern that the League refused to allow a candidate to speak at a forum. 

President Sharon Brown, League of Women Voters of Clark County
President Sharon Brown, League of Women Voters of Clark County

We believe voters deserve to hear from all candidates to learn about their qualifications for office and their thoughts on current issues. That’s why we organize candidate forums and debates.

Although we work around candidate schedules with the hope of having 100% attendance, sometimes an unavoidable conflict comes up,  leaving only one candidate in a race able to attend. The League’s Candidate Forum Policy (https://lwvclarkcounty.org/CandidateForumPolicy) explains the several reasons we have to cancel if only one candidate for a position attends a General Election forum. The bottom line of the three-page document is that we cannot and will not do anything that advances one candidate over another.

Sharon Brown, president
LWVCC


Also read:

4 Comments

  1. Rob Anderson

    LWV is a left-leaning org that poses as an independent group. They stack questions that favor or help left-leaning candidates and allow them to go after conservative candidates while holding conservative candidates to a higher standard. Case in point, Perez v Kent and the Stonier v Baker forums from 2022

    Reply
  2. DD

    This is simply not true. Since this is a forum and not a debate, then ALL candidates should be heard. The LWV can change their so-called “rules” instead of hiding behind them. If this was a debate then the other candidate would need to be present. This was not. Mr. Perman deserved to have his voice heard but yet his opponent chooses to hide.

    Reply
  3. Anna Miller

    Dear LWV, are you aware that your organization has been given a nickname. Conservatives call it the League of Liberal Women Voters. Why? Pretty simple. For as long as I can remember the LWV has shown an obvious left-leaning bias. Still, many of our conservative candidates show up and participate, knowing it’s going to be lopsided.

    The Clark County Republican Women have held many candidate forums and debates. We invite them and they are free to decide to attend or not. If they do show up, they get to participate! You simply make an announcement that the following candidates could not make it tonight or did not respond to the invitation. Then you proceed to show respect to those that are there. EZ-PZ. The day belongs to those who show up.

    Reply
  4. Margaret

    I was disappointed that Camas City Council Candidate Gary Perman was not allowed to participate in the leage forum that featured all the other Camas City Council candidates as well as the Camas and Washougal Mayor candidates. The forum is posted at https://www.cvtv.org/vid_link/36129 , For the Nov. 7 election, citizens can vote on every city council position and the Mayor’s race that is listed on their ballot. Gary Perman has been a successful business owner in Camas for 27 years, and will be a careful steward of public funds entrusted to the City of Camas if elected as a Camas City Councilor. His opponent urged the city council to approve a contract for up to $140,000 plus expense to hire a PR consultant from Snohomish County to provide messages to persuade Camas residents to vote for tax hikes! Thankfully, the majority of the council did not support that contract. Perman supported a public vote on adding utility taxes on utility bills for Camas residents, whereas his opponent was one of the city councilors who voted to immplement the new tax. At the Oct. 16 Camas City Council meeting, Perman’s opponent again urged the council to approve yet another consultant contract, which the majority of the council was not in favor of. Perman is in tune with the needs of Camas residents and businesses who value preserving the parks and resources the city has, with careful spending on essential services to avoid unnecessary tax hikes..

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *