Let’s stop lying to ourselves. We’ve been told for decades that Washington is broken because of gridlock, because of the rules, because of the filibuster or the donors or the two-party system. All of that may be true. But there’s a more uncomfortable truth sitting right in front of us, one we keep refusing to look at directly.

The people we elect to fix the system have no intention of fixing it. And we keep electing them anyway.

Performance Artists, Not Problem Solvers

Congress has a 14% approval rating. It has hovered somewhere between miserable and historically embarrassing for the better part of two decades. And yet, somehow, re-election rates for incumbents routinely clear 90%. Stop and sit with that number. Nine out of ten people we say we hate are sent right back to Washington by the same voters who say they hate them.

This is not a failure of democracy. This is a failure of accountability. And it is entirely, completely, uncomfortably our fault.

Our federal leaders have perfected a particular craft: the art of looking busy while accomplishing nothing. They hold press conferences about problems that have existed for thirty years. They tweet their outrage. They send fundraising emails about the very crises they have had the power to address and chose not to. They have turned the appearance of effort into a full-time career, and we have funded every minute of it.

Left, Right, Same Result

This is not a partisan observation. This is just arithmetic.

Democrats held the White House, Senate, and House simultaneously and still couldn’t deliver on the foundational promises they had been making for a generation. Republicans have done the same. Both parties have had unified control of government and both have spent that power expanding it, rewarding donors, and kicking the actual hard decisions to the next Congress.

The national debt has been a crisis demanding urgent action for forty years. Leaders from both parties have stood at podiums and called it exactly that. The debt is now over $35 trillion. At some point, the word ‘urgent’ stops meaning anything.

The border. Healthcare costs. Veterans care. Infrastructure. Pick any issue that affects ordinary Americans in their daily lives, and you will find a bipartisan trail of press releases, committee hearings, task forces, and blue-ribbon commissions stretching back decades. What you will not find is resolution. Because resolution ends the fundraising.

The Career Politician Is the Problem

We have allowed elected office to become a career. In some cases, a dynasty. There are sitting members of Congress who have been in Washington longer than most of their constituents have been alive. These are not people who went to serve and came home. These are people who discovered that serving is the best gig they ever had, and they have no interest in leaving.

When your job security depends on the problem continuing to exist, you don’t solve the problem. You manage it. You message it. You hold it up every two or four or six years and say, ‘They want to take this away from you. Only I can stop them.’ And we write the check.

There is a direct line between career politicians and policy stagnation. It is not complicated. People who need to keep getting elected cannot afford to make difficult decisions. Difficult decisions create opponents. So they make no decisions at all, dress it up in procedure and partisanship, and go home for the weekend.

The Audacity of Low Standards

We have accepted standards for our elected leaders that we would never tolerate anywhere else. If a surgeon had the results our Congress has, they’d lose their license. If a contractor built you a house with this quality of workmanship, you’d sue them. But a Senator can spend thirty years failing to solve any of the problems he was sent to solve, and we call him an institution.

We watch leaders who trade stocks with inside knowledge of legislation they write. We watch them exempt themselves from laws they impose on everyone else. We watch them show up for the camera and disappear for the vote. And then we argue about which party is worse, as though the problem is the jersey and not the player.

The problem is the player. The problem is that we have spent so long sorting ourselves into tribes that we stopped asking whether anyone on our team can actually do the job.

What Accountability Actually Looks Like

Accountability is not yelling at your television. It is not sharing an outrage post at midnight. It is not donating to the other team’s opponent because you’re angry. Real accountability is specific, informed, and consequential.

It means knowing your representative’s voting record, not just their talking points. It means showing up in primaries, which is where most of the real decisions get made and where almost nobody votes. It means being willing to vote against your own party when your own party sends you someone who has demonstrated they have no intention of doing the work.

It means accepting that ‘but the other side is worse’ is not a governance standard. It’s a hostage negotiation, and we keep agreeing to the terms.

The System Isn’t the Problem. We Are.

Here is the part that should keep you up at night. The problem is not just that our politicians are ineffective. The problem is that many of them are not actually in charge of anything.

Think about what you have watched happen in real time. Wars launched without congressional votes. Budgets written by lobbyists and dropped in front of members who have hours to read them. Regulatory agencies staffed by the executives of the industries they are supposed to regulate. Federal contracts flowing to donors with a reliability that has nothing to do with merit. The same foreign policy goals pursued across administrations of opposite parties, as though the people at the top of the ticket are largely decorative.

Your elected representative is, in many cases, a spokesperson. They show up for the cameras. They vote how they are told. They read the talking points. The actual decisions, the ones that determine where the money goes, which wars get started, which industries get protected, which investigations get quietly buried, those happen in rooms your representative is not in, made by people you did not elect and cannot remove.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the mundane, documented reality of how Washington operates. Donor class priorities become policy. Defense contractors get their wars. Pharmaceutical companies write their own regulations. Media conglomerates shape the narrative. And the person whose name is on the ballot is left to explain it all to constituents who are increasingly sure they are being lied to, because they are.

The Constitution is not broken. The framework still works. What is broken is the pretense that the people we elect are actually the ones governing. We have built an elaborate theatrical production around the idea of self-government while the real decisions get made offstage. We are arguing about the actors when we should be asking who wrote the script.

We do not just have a personnel problem. We have a captured system, staffed by people who are either in on it or too comfortable to fight it. And the only way that changes is if the people doing the hiring, meaning us, stop accepting the performance as a substitute for the real thing.

Your Money Is Gone. Nobody Is in Trouble.

For years, anyone who raised serious questions about how the federal government spends money was dismissed as a crank. Then DOGE started publishing receipts, and suddenly the cranks look like the only adults in the room.

Hundreds of billions in COVID relief fraud. Payments to dead people. Contracts that exist in no procurement system. Agencies funding programs that nobody can locate. The Pentagon has failed its audit. Again. For the seventh consecutive year. The Pentagon cannot account for trillions of dollars in assets and liabilities, and the response from Congress has been roughly the equivalent of a shrug.

If you ran your household finances the way the federal government runs its books, you would be in prison. The people running the federal government get reelected. Some of them get committee chairmanships. The ones who complain the loudest about waste are often the same ones who steered the most pork back home and called it economic development.

The fraud is not a bug in the system. At this point, it is a feature. Money moves through Washington in ways that serve the people moving it, not the people who earned it. And the leaders with the authority to demand real answers have spent decades finding reasons not to ask the questions.

The Epstein Files and the Silence That Followed

Call it a conspiracy theory or a hoax if it makes you feel better. That label has become a way to avoid engaging with facts that are uncomfortable. Here is what is not a theory: Jeffrey Epstein ran a trafficking operation for years. He had a private island. He had a flight log. He had powerful clients. He died in federal custody under circumstances that remain disputed. And the people whose names appear in those documents are, with very few exceptions, walking around free.

The files have been partially released. What is in them is not nothing. What is in them is, at minimum, evidence that powerful people were doing things that, if any ordinary American did them, would result in prosecution. The question that never gets a satisfying answer is why the accountability stops where it does.

This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. Names connected to those files cross every line. That is precisely why nothing happens. When both sides of the aisle have exposure, both sides of the aisle have an incentive to let the story fade. Committee hearings get scheduled and then quietly deprioritized. Witnesses develop memory problems. The news cycle moves on because the news cycle is very easy to redirect when the right people want it redirected.

The victims don’t get that luxury. They don’t get to move on. And neither should we.

The Slush Fund They Voted to Keep Secret

In 2017, reporting revealed that Congress had been operating a secret fund, drawn from taxpayer money, to quietly settle sexual harassment and misconduct claims against members. No public disclosure. No named members. No consequences. Just a check written with your money to make the problem disappear, and a nondisclosure agreement to make sure you never found out.

When legislation was introduced to require disclosure of which members had used this fund, it failed. Members of Congress, from both parties, voted to protect the secrecy of a fund that existed specifically to shield them from accountability for their own conduct.

Let that land. The people who write the laws voted to exempt themselves from the basic transparency they would demand of anyone else. And a large portion of them will go home and get reelected.

I want to be direct about something here. I am a Republican. I have spent years doing the unglamorous work of grassroots organizing in Eastern Washington. I have knocked doors, made calls, built coalitions, and invested real time into this party because I believe in its principles. That investment does not come with a loyalty oath to people who betray those principles the moment they land in Washington.

When our own congressional representatives vote against transparency, vote against letting the public know who used a taxpayer-funded slush fund to cover up misconduct, they don’t get a pass because they have an R next to their name. That is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. The jersey is not the point. The conduct is the point.

I will take heat for writing this. People will say I’m helping the other side, that criticism from within is a gift to the opposition. Here’s my answer to that: the party cannot be worth defending if the people running it aren’t worth holding accountable. If we can’t say that out loud, we have already lost something more important than an election.

The Double Standard Is the Message

There is a pattern here that goes beyond any single scandal. Fraud at scale. Files implicating the powerful. A secret fund to cover up misconduct. What connects all of it is not ideology. It is insulation. The people at the top of our political system have constructed, brick by brick, a structure that protects them from the consequences that would destroy anyone else.

When a regular citizen commits fraud, they get prosecuted. When the government commits fraud, it gets a larger budget. When a regular citizen covers up misconduct, they face consequences. When Congress covers up misconduct, they vote to keep the cover-up funded. When a regular citizen’s name turns up in a trafficking investigation, their life is over. When a powerful person’s name turns up, the investigation quietly winds down.

This is not about being cynical. Cynicism is passive. This is about being clear-eyed enough to stop pretending that the problem will fix itself, that the right election will turn the tide, that the next candidate will be different.

The hiring committee is still us. And it is past time we started acting like it.

We Have Been Paying for Wars That Were Never Ours to Fight

Supporting the military is not the same thing as supporting every decision made by the people who deploy it. That distinction matters, and a generation of Americans has learned it the hard way.

Millennials came of age watching the towers fall. We were in elementary school, middle school, just starting our lives. The reaction was understandable. The grief was real. The resolve was real. And then we watched that resolve get channeled into twenty years of decisions that accomplished something remarkably close to nothing, at a cost that will take decades to fully calculate.

Afghanistan. Twenty years. Trillions of dollars. Thousands of American lives. Tens of thousands more returned home carrying wounds that don’t show up on an X-ray. And then, in the summer of 2021, the Taliban walked back into Kabul and reclaimed the country in a matter of days. Two decades of nation-building, gone in a week. The people who made those decisions retired comfortably. The people who executed them are still waiting on disability claims.

Iraq. The weapons of mass destruction that were not there. The sectarian chaos that followed the removal of a government we decided we didn’t like. The rise of ISIS in the vacuum we created. Thousands of Americans dead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. A region destabilized in ways we are still managing today. The architects of that war became cable news commentators. They write books. They give speeches.

And then Libya. Syria. The proxy wars that don’t get named as wars because no formal declaration was ever made, because that would require a vote, and a vote would require accountability. We armed factions we couldn’t vet, in conflicts we couldn’t define, toward outcomes we couldn’t articulate. And when those situations deteriorated, as they inevitably did, the answer was always some version of ‘the alternative would have been worse.’

And now Iran. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a large-scale offensive against Iran. Seven American soldiers are already dead. Hundreds of thousands of people across the region are in the crossfire. Iran is retaliating against US bases, Gulf states, and civilian infrastructure from Lebanon to the Strait of Hormuz. The global economy is rattled. Gas prices are spiking at home. And the question that never gets a clean answer is still the same one: what does victory look like, and who decided we were in this?

The administration says it is defending the American people from an imminent threat. The Defense Intelligence Agency assessed in 2025 that Iran was a decade away from missiles capable of reaching the United States. Negotiations were active. Mediators said a deal was within reach. Then the bombs fell, the talks collapsed, and now we are in it again, with no defined endgame, no congressional declaration of war, and the bill already running into the tens of billions.

This is the pattern. The justification arrives polished and urgent. The exit strategy is vague or absent. The costs land on the people who had no vote in the decision. And by the time the full accounting comes due, the people who made the call have moved on.

Maybe. But the families burying their kids don’t get to litigate counterfactuals. They just get the flag.

America First Has to Mean Something

If America First is a governing principle and not just a bumper sticker, then it has to mean something concrete. It has to mean that before we commit American lives and American treasure to a conflict, we ask a harder set of questions than we have been asking. What is the objective? What does victory look like? What is the exit? And most importantly: is this genuinely a threat to the American people, or is it a threat to someone else’s interests that we have been convinced, through the usual combination of fear and abstraction, to treat as our own?

The same leaders who talk about America First have repeatedly supported interventions that put American sons and daughters in harm’s way for outcomes that had nothing to do with American safety or American prosperity. The words and the votes do not match. They rarely do.

Meanwhile, the money that funded those wars could have rebuilt every crumbling bridge and road in this country. It could have funded veterans’ care at a level that does not require veterans to fight a second war with the VA just to get treatment for injuries from the first one. It could have done a thousand things for the Americans who are supposed to be the first priority of a government that claims to put them first.

The Boomers Built This. My Generation Has to Live In It.

This is not an attack on a generation. It is a statement of fact about power and time. The Baby Boomers have controlled American politics, American institutions, and American foreign policy for the better part of fifty years. They inherited a country with a balanced budget, a solvent Social Security system, a manufacturing base, and a foreign policy built around hard-won lessons from two world wars. What they pass on is something different.

A $35 trillion debt. An infrastructure held together with deferred maintenance and optimism. A foreign policy establishment that still thinks in Cold War frameworks while the actual threats have moved on. Endless wars justified by logic that always seems to evaporate once the shooting starts. And a political culture so calcified, so resistant to the kind of genuine disruption that change requires, that the people who have been running things for decades still can’t seem to let go of the wheel.

Millennials and the generation behind them are not asking to tear everything down. They are asking a reasonable question: can we at least try something different? Can the people who created these problems step back and let the people who have to live with the consequences have a real voice in solving them?

Parents in their thirties are watching this closely. Dads and moms who have spent their entire adult lives in the shadow of one war or another, who have watched their tax dollars vanish into conflicts that changed nothing, who are now raising children in a country that feels less stable than the one they grew up in. They are not interested in the same recycled arguments from the same recycled leaders. They want something real. Not a slogan. Not a platform. Not a carefully focus-grouped promise that disappears the week after the election.

Real change. Actual results. Leaders who say what they mean and do what they say, regardless of which party benefits.

Enough

This generation is done being managed. Done being told that our frustration is naive, that we don’t understand how complicated it all is, that the people who made the mess are still the most qualified to clean it up.

We understand exactly how complicated it is. We have been paying the bill for the complications.

We buried classmates who went to wars built on bad intelligence and worse judgment. We came home from those wars and fought for benefits that should have been waiting for us. We watched the people who sent us write their memoirs while our friends are still on waitlists. We inherited debt we did not vote for, wars we did not start, and a political class that is still, somehow, asking for our patience.

The patience is gone. What is left is clarity. The hiring committee is still us. The next election is still ours to decide. And this generation, the one that has been lied to, sent overseas, handed the debt, and asked to keep quiet about all of it, is paying very close attention.

We are not going away. And we are done hiring the wrong people.

Parts 1 through 3 built the case. The structural imbalance is real. The policy outcomes speak for themselves. The institutional pressure when Yakima left revealed everything you need to know about how the system protects itself.

Now comes the final question: What are cities actually paying for?

Because when the pressure failed and the process games didn’t work, AWC defenders always fell back on one argument: the benefits justify the cost.

Let’s examine that claim.

Insurance: Show Me the Quote

Throughout the entire membership debate of close to two years in the City of Yakima, insurance was cited as a primary benefit: access to pooled programs, shared risk, and collective purchasing power.

Sounds compelling until you ask for specifics.

Yakima is self-insured. The city operates its own risk management program for liability, workers’ compensation, and employee health benefits. According to the city’s own job postings and benefits documentation, the City of Yakima “is self-insured and follows WA State requirements for local government self-insurance health and welfare programs.” The Finance Director position manages the city’s risk management fund, coordinates insurance broker selection, and oversees the self-insured workers’ compensation and medical/dental programs.

This is not unusual for a city of Yakima’s size. Washington has multiple insurance options available to municipalities:

Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA): A pooled liability and property insurance program with over 165 member entities, founded in 1981. Notably, Yakima is not listed among WCIA’s members.

Cities Insurance Association of Washington (CIAW): Another risk pool founded in 1988, originally with 32 cities, now expanded to include special purpose and fire districts.

Enduris (formerly WGEP): A risk-sharing pool for special purpose districts.

Self insurance: Cities with sufficient scale and risk management infrastructure can operate their own programs under state regulation (RCW 48.62 and WAC 200-110).

Direct commercial insurance: Cities can contract directly with insurance carriers.

When the insurance argument surfaced during Yakima’s membership debate, the request was straightforward: provide a quote comparing pooled insurance costs to current self-insurance expenses.

That quote never materialized.

Not because staff forgot to ask. Not because time ran short. When I pressed both the city manager and finance director for comparative numbers, none were provided.

The absence of that quote is revealing. If pooled insurance through AWC-affiliated programs offered genuine savings over Yakima’s existing self-insurance structure, producing that comparison would have been immediate and compelling. The lack of data suggests one of two possibilities: either no one bothered to get the quote, or the quote didn’t support the argument.

Facilitation Is Not Free

Even when AWC does connect cities to insurance products, whether through WCIA, AWC’s Employee Benefit Trust for health insurance, or other programs, those products are not gifts. Cities pay premiums. Cities pay administrative fees. Cities absorb risk-sharing obligations.

AWC’s role is facilitation. That facilitation has a price: membership dues that fund the staff, infrastructure, and overhead required to maintain those connections.

The question is not whether insurance pools exist or whether some cities find them valuable. The question is whether AWC’s role in facilitating access to those pools justifies the cost of membership when cities can:

• Join pools directly (WCIA and CIAW operate independently of AWC membership requirements) • Purchase commercial insurance through brokers • Operate self insured programs under state regulation

For cities already self insured with established risk management infrastructure, paying AWC membership dues for insurance “facilitation” makes no financial sense. You are paying for a service you do not need to access options you are not using.

The Cost-Benefit Failure

If insurance savings were real and quantifiable for Yakima, the evidence would have been presented immediately. It would have been the centerpiece of the argument to retain membership.

Instead, what we got was silence.

That silence speaks volumes. When a claimed benefit cannot survive basic scrutiny, when a simple request for comparative cost data goes unanswered, the value proposition has failed.

Legal Services: MRSC Is Not AWC

MRSC gets mentioned constantly as a membership benefit. Legal research, sample ordinances, policy guidance. Genuinely useful for many cities.

Here is what gets left out: MRSC is separately funded and operates independently.

While MRSC was originally created in 1934 as the research arm of the Association of Washington Cities, it split from AWC in 1939. Since 1969, MRSC has operated as an independent nonprofit under Chapter 43.110 RCW. According to MRSC’s own documentation, the organization is “funded primarily through a state appropriation” that comes from a small portion of city and county liquor revenues distributed by the State of Washington to the Department of Commerce, which then contracts with MRSC.

This funding structure is critical to understand. MRSC receives state funding with support from both the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties, but that funding “is not part of the state general fund” and flows through the Department of Commerce under statutory authority.

Most of MRSC’s services are offered free of charge to local government employees and public officials of all 281 cities and towns, all 39 counties, and hundreds of special purpose districts in Washington State. Eligibility is not contingent on AWC membership. It is based on being a Washington municipality.

AWC benefits from the perception that losing membership means losing MRSC access. That impression serves institutional interests. It is not accurate based on how MRSC is actually funded and structured.

The functional reality is this: MRSC’s value is not tied to AWC dues. It is tied to state appropriations flowing from liquor revenue and statutory authority under RCW 43.110. If AWC attempted to weaponize MRSC access based on membership status, cities could and should demand that MRSC continue operating as the independent, state-funded entity it already is by statute.

More importantly, for cities like Yakima with full in-house legal departments, MRSC is a reference tool at best. Yakima’s legal staff researches municipal law, drafts ordinances, and advises council without needing a third-party clearinghouse to do their job.

MRSC may save smaller cities without dedicated legal staff significant time and money. For Yakima, it is a convenience, not a dependency.

When convenience is presented as indispensable, you know the value case is weak.

Training: Widely Available, Not Exclusive

AWC offers training. Workshops, conferences, continuing education for staff and elected officials.

It is professionally delivered. It covers relevant topics. For newer officials and small-city staff, it can be informative.

It is also not unique, and much of what AWC offers is available at lower or no cost from other sources.

Training is available from multiple providers across Washington:

State agencies provide extensive free training. The Washington State Department of Commerce offers the Short Course on Local Planning, created in 1977 and provided free to all local government officials. The course covers mandatory training on the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act, comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act, land use planning laws, and roles in planning. Commerce also provides technical assistance through its Local Government Division on topics including broadband, infrastructure planning, sustainable growth, and economic development.

The Washington State Attorney General’s office provides free training on Open Government, the Open Public Meetings Act, and the Public Records Act available to all local officials at no cost.

Software and service vendors already working with cities routinely provide training as part of their contracts. Budget systems, utility billing software, planning applications, and public works management tools all come with vendor provided training because vendors have strong incentives to ensure city staff can use their products effectively.

Professional associations like the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), and the American Planning Association offer certifications, webinars, and resources independent of AWC. Many of these provide continuing education credits recognized across the country.

Regional networks and peer sharing happen organically among city managers, finance directors, and department heads who connect informally to share best practices without institutional overhead or membership requirements.

Online platforms and recorded sessions make training accessible on demand. Many state agencies, including Commerce, provide recorded webinars and video training that officials can access at any time.

Notably, even some training AWC promotes is actually provided by others. The Short Course on Local Planning, while sponsored in part by AWC’s Risk Management Services Agency, is created and delivered by the Department of Commerce with support from the Planning Association of Washington and the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. AWC sponsors it, but does not create or deliver it.

AWC’s training is polished and professionally delivered. It is also not irreplaceable, and in many cases, comparable training is available at no cost from state agencies with a statutory mandate to provide it.

When weighing budget priorities, the question is not whether training is valuable. The question is whether AWC’s training justifies membership dues when free alternatives of equal or better quality exist from the state agencies already funded by taxpayers.

For many cities, the answer is no.

Advocacy: Paying Someone to Undermine You

This is where the value proposition does not just fail. It inverts entirely.

AWC exists, first and foremost, to advocate. To be the voice of cities in Olympia. To defend local interests against state overreach.

That is the pitch.

The reality, documented exhaustively in Part 2, is that AWC’s advocacy consistently advances policies eastern Washington cities oppose.

Density mandates that override local zoning.

Right to Counsel that destabilizes small rental markets.

Encampment policies that remove enforcement discretion.

Climate regulations functioning as unfunded mandates.

Labor expansions that hit small cities hardest.

None of this reflects Yakima’s priorities. None of it makes governing easier or budgets more sustainable. None of it represents the values of eastern Washington voters.

And yet AWC calls this success.

Negative Value Is Worse Than Zero

Here is the critical insight: advocacy working against your interests is not simply worthless. It has negative value.

You are not failing to get a return on investment. You are funding active harm.

Remaining in AWC means continuing to pay an organization that lobbies for policies designed to restrict your authority, increase your costs, and impose Seattle’s priorities on your community.

That is not a neutral transaction. That is paying someone to work against you.

Hire Your Own Advocate

If representation in Olympia genuinely matters, hire a lobbyist directly.

For the cost of AWC membership, a city could retain a contract lobbyist who:

• Answers exclusively to your council • Advances only your priorities • Operates without structural allegiance to Seattle

That lobbyist would not celebrate progressive housing mandates as victories. Would not frame tenant protections that shrink rental supply as wins. Would not advocate for policies you oppose and then send you a newsletter praising the outcome.

They would work for you.

Why is this not standard practice?

Because AWC has convinced city officials that collective representation is more effective, more legitimate, more professional than independent advocacy.

That claim works only when the collective shares interests.

When interests diverge, and they clearly do between east and west, collective representation becomes a tool for the majority to impose its will while maintaining the fiction of consensus.

You are the minority. The board math proves it.

Hiring your own lobbyist is not isolation. It is accountability.

Influence: A Seat at a Table Where You Cannot Win

AWC responds to structural criticism by pointing to participation. Eastern Washington cities have board seats. Committee assignments. Opportunities to speak.

All true.

All irrelevant when you are permanently outvoted.

Participation is not power.

You can attend every meeting. Serve on every committee. Make the most compelling case ever delivered.

And when the vote is called, the math decides: 72% west, 28% east.

You lose.

This is not influence. This is the performance of influence. It is designed to make you feel included while ensuring outcomes never change.

The real influence belongs to one group: your voters.

Not the AWC board. Not Olympia insiders. Not institutional players with coordinated pressure campaigns.

The people who elected you. The people who live with the consequences of your decisions.

When AWC’s positions align with your voters, fine. When they conflict, the choice is simple.

You owe AWC nothing. You owe your constituents everything.

Economic Impact: Leverage, Not Partnership

As documented in Part 3, when Yakima’s membership cancellation became final, AWC deployed the conference argument. The pitch was clear: maintain membership or the annual conference relocates. Lose 300 to 500 attendees. Forfeit roughly $400,000 in gross economic activity.

What Part 3 revealed was the pressure tactic. What deserves examination here is whether the economic argument holds up under analysis.

It does not.

Gross Activity Is Not City Revenue

Gross economic activity is not city revenue. When conference attendees spend money in Yakima, those dollars flow primarily to private businesses: hotels, restaurants, gas stations, retail establishments.

The City of Yakima captures only a fraction of that activity through sales tax (currently 8.5% in Yakima, with the city receiving approximately 1.3% of that) and lodging tax.

Do the math. On $400,000 in gross spending, if half goes to lodging and half to other purchases, the city might see $4,000 in lodging tax revenue and perhaps $2,600 in sales tax revenue. That is roughly $6,600 in actual city revenue from an event generating $400,000 in gross economic activity.

Compare that $6,600 to the cost of AWC membership dues (close to $80,000/year), and the economic argument collapses immediately.

Conferences Follow Economics, Not Loyalty

Nothing prevents AWC from hosting conferences in Yakima regardless of membership status.

Organizations choose Yakima’s convention center for straightforward reasons: affordability, central location, adequate facilities, reasonable hotel rates. These factors do not change based on whether Yakima pays AWC membership dues.

If AWC’s conference truly benefits from Yakima’s location and pricing, the economic incentive to return remains regardless of membership. Conversely, if AWC chooses to avoid Yakima purely because of membership status, that decision costs AWC more money for equivalent facilities elsewhere.

Yakima did not revoke access. Did not raise rates. Did not impose restrictions.

AWC chose to condition conference location on membership. That decision reflects AWC’s priorities, not economic logic.

Leverage Disguised as Mutual Benefit

When an organization responds to membership cancellation by threatening to relocate an economically beneficial event, it reveals the transactional nature of the relationship.

This is not partnership. This is not collaboration. This is conditional access based on payment.

The implicit message is clear: pay the membership dues, or we take our business elsewhere, even if doing so costs us more and makes less sense logistically.

That is leverage. Pure and simple.

Organizations confident in their value do not need to threaten economic consequences when members leave. They demonstrate value, and members stay voluntarily.

The fact that AWC deployed the conference threat tells you everything about how weak the actual membership value proposition is. When you cannot justify dues based on services provided, you resort to threatening to withhold optional economic activity.

Economic Development Does Not Require Ransom

Cities should welcome conferences, conventions, and events that bring visitors and economic activity. Yakima’s convention center exists precisely to attract such events.

But economic development does not require paying institutional dues as ransom for conference access.

If AWC wants to host conferences in Yakima because it makes financial sense, excellent. Yakima’s facilities remain available at competitive rates.

If AWC chooses to politicize conference location and use it as leverage to maintain membership, that reflects poorly on AWC, not Yakima.

Cities should not have to fund statewide associations that work against their interests simply to maintain access to events that make economic sense for both parties.

That is not economic development. That is institutional extortion dressed up as mutual benefit.

The Actual Cost-Benefit

Summarize the value proposition:

Insurance: No savings demonstrated. No quote provided. Likely costs more than self insurance.

Legal services: Separately funded. Could operate independently. Unnecessary for cities with legal staff.

Training: Available from state agencies, vendors, professional groups, and online platforms at lower or no cost.

Advocacy: Actively harmful. Negative value.

Influence: Structurally impossible when you hold 28% of votes.

Economic impact: Conditioned leverage, not legitimate benefit.

Now weigh that against the cost.

Membership dues that could fund a park project. Partial salary for a police officer. Fire equipment. Road maintenance. Programs that directly benefit residents.

Every dollar spent on AWC is a dollar not spent serving your community.

The cost-benefit analysis is not close.

What Other Cities Should Do

Yakima is not unique. Every eastern Washington city faces identical structural dynamics.

If you represent Wenatchee, Spokane, Tri-Cities, Walla Walla, Moses Lake, Ellensburg, ask these questions:

1. Does AWC’s legislative agenda reflect our priorities or consistently advance policies we oppose?

2. When east-west conflicts arise, how often does our board representative prevail?

3. What specific, quantifiable benefits does membership provide that we cannot access independently or cheaper?

4. Would hiring our own contract lobbyist deliver better representation for the same cost?

5. Are we funding this because it delivers value, or because we have always done it and leaving feels uncomfortable?

These are not rhetorical. They deserve answers.

If the answers reveal AWC does not serve your city’s interests, the solution is obvious.

Govern Locally

Eastern Washington cities have accepted a fiction for too long.

The fiction that statewide representation means equal representation.

The fiction that participation equals influence.

The fiction that paying dues to a Seattle-dominated organization amplifies your voice in Olympia.

Yakima rejected that fiction. Twice.

The system responded predictably: pressure, process, economic threats, peer disapproval.

Everything except a legitimate answer to the simplest question: what value are we receiving?

Because the value is not there.

Worse, the relationship is actively harmful when the advocacy you fund works against the people you represent.

Your First Obligation

City councilmembers are not elected to maintain institutional relationships or preserve organizational comfort.

You are elected to represent your community.

When interests align with AWC, collaborate. When they conflict, choose your voters. Every time.

Local Problems, Local Solutions

Olympia does not know Yakima better than Yakima does.

Seattle does not know Wenatchee better than Wenatchee does.

AWC does not know your city better than you do.

That is not isolationism. That is the foundational principle of local government.

The people closest to the problem are best positioned to solve it.

Surrendering authority to statewide organizations that do not share your priorities is not governing. It is administering someone else’s agenda.

Stop Deferring to West-Side Influence

The political reality: the west side has the votes. That will not change.

But that does not mean eastern Washington cities must fund organizations advancing west-side priorities under the banner of statewide representation.

You owe AWC nothing.

You owe Seattle nothing.

You owe Olympia nothing when their mandates conflict with your community’s needs.

What you owe: honest representation of the people who elected you.

If that means breaking with institutional expectations, good.

If that means uncomfortable conversations at conferences, fine.

If that means being the second, fifth, or fifteenth city to leave, so be it.

Your job is not making the system comfortable. Your job is serving constituents.

The Path Forward

Yakima proved it works.

The city left. Services continued. Budgets balanced. Governance proceeded.

And Yakima reclaimed something critical: authority to set priorities without institutional interference.

Other cities can do the same.

Ask hard questions about value.

Assess honestly whether AWC’s advocacy reflects your community’s interests.

Then decide: do we fund this because it serves residents, or because it serves the institution?

If the answer is the latter, the choice is clear.

Cancel the membership. Redirect the funds. Govern locally.

Your voters will respect you for it.

Good Riddance

This series examined AWC from every angle.

The structural imbalance that ensures eastern Washington loses every important vote.

The policy outcomes that AWC celebrates while eastern Washington absorbs the costs.

The institutional pressure applied when a city dares to leave.

And finally, the claimed benefits that, under scrutiny, range from unnecessary to actively harmful.

AWC serves Seattle. It serves Olympia’s progressive consensus. It serves institutional preservation.

It does not serve eastern Washington.

For cities that recognize this reality, the conclusion is unavoidable.

It is time to leave.

It is time to stop funding advocacy that works against you.

It is time to stop pretending participation without power constitutes representation.

It is time to support your citizens directly, govern according to their priorities, and reject the pressure to conform to an organization that does not reflect your values.

Yakima made that choice.

Other cities should follow.

The Association of Washington Cities claims to represent all 281 cities in the state.

Eastern Washington cities should ask themselves: does it represent us, or does it represent the 72% that outvotes us every time?

The answer determines whether membership makes sense.

For Yakima, the answer was clear.

Good riddance.

I know many of you are waiting for part 4 of my AWC series. I promise it is coming. I took a short break over Christmas, and I have not quite finished it yet. Do not worry. I will deliver it soon. In the meantime, something has been burning in my heart, and I needed to write this instead.

This post is for my fellow believers. It is meant to help us look inward. Why are our churches not more engaged with the societal problems that plague us? Jesus is the antidote to every single one of the world’s problems. Every single one. Yet somehow we expect lost and hurting people to walk through our doors, sit in comfortable chairs under bright lights and loud music, watch big screens, and encounter Jesus that way. All without us first meeting their most basic human needs. Fellowship for the lonely elderly. Food for the hungry. Housing for the homeless. Friendship for the fatherless. The list goes on.

Every issue plaguing society has the same answer: Jesus. But people will not care how much we know until they know how much we care.

Some may read this and feel it is a condemnation of the church. Please do not take it that way. I love the church. I have given my life to it. This is not an attack. This is a sincere, puzzling question from someone who has lived inside these walls for decades. Has the church lost its saltiness? If so, can it get that saltiness back? How did we get here? And how do we start making the turn?

Trust me, I have been part of the problem more than most. For years, my career revolved around church technology. I have sold LED walls, lighting rigs, haze machines, video switchers, sound systems. Everything from million-dollar setups for large campuses to modest systems for small congregations. My mission was always the same: this technology will help us reach more people. But looking back honestly, did it? Or did it mostly help us put on a better weekly program? For whom, exactly? The already convinced? The comfortable?

Many churches across the country have slogans like “People over program.” We print it on shirts and put it on websites. Yet do we actually live it? Do our budgets reflect it? Do our schedules reflect it? Do our priorities reflect it?

From Seeker-Sensitive to Societally Passive

Let us rewind a bit. In the early 2000s, the seeker-sensitive movement swept through evangelical circles. The idea was noble: make church accessible, remove unnecessary barriers, focus on relevance to draw in the unchurched. And it worked in many ways. Megachurches grew. Attendance swelled. People came.

But fast-forward to the 2020s, and something else has emerged: a church that is not just sensitive, but passive. Passive on the cultural and moral issues that demand a clear biblical voice. The sanctity of life. The breakdown of the family. The erosion of truth in our society.

I have spent the last twenty years in ministry, from youth groups to pastoral roles, immersed in the rhythms of church life. I have seen the dedication, the passion, the genuine hearts seeking to follow Christ. But something shifted for me when COVID hit. As the world locked down, churches pivoted to online streams and virtual gatherings. Necessary adaptations, yes. Yet in that forced pause, my eyes opened wider.

Why do we pour so much energy into perfecting our Sunday productions? The screens, the sound systems, the lights, the haze. Facilities renovated every few years. Staffs expanded to orchestrate the weekly event. Outside those walls, the silence can feel deafening.

Drive through nearly any city in America, including here in Washington state where I live, and you will see it: beautiful campuses with state-of-the-art technology, comfortable seating, programs designed to attract crowds. It is impressive. But I keep wondering: Is this what Jesus meant when He commanded, “Go into all the world and make disciples” (Matthew 28:19)?

That word “go” is active. Urgent. Outward. Yet too often we have interpreted it as “gather.” We build attractive environments and hope people show up, rather than us going to where they are.

Who Will Meet the Needs If We Will Not?

Who is to feed the sick? Who is to help the elderly? Who is to care for the orphan and the widow in their distress, as James 1:27 defines pure and undefiled religion? Jesus did not wait for people to come to the synagogue. He went to them. He touched lepers. He fed crowds. He welcomed children. He dined with outcasts.

Today governments strain under the weight of societal needs. Budgets are stretched thin at every level: schools, cities, counties, states, federal. We watch programs expand while taxes rise and deficits grow. Why? Governments were never designed to be the primary source of compassion and community care. They are systems of policy and bureaucracy. They can operate at scale, but they often lack the personal, relational touch that truly transforms lives.

History tells a different story. In the 1800s and early 1900s, churches were the backbone of community welfare. Hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, schools, elder care. These often began as church initiatives. Believers saw needs and met them with hands-on, faith-driven action. Somewhere along the way we stepped back. We outsourced mercy to the state. Now we expect government to fill every gap, and we act surprised when it struggles to do so.

Why have we accepted this shift? Why do we treat government as the default provider instead of stepping forward ourselves as the body of Christ? Let us not rely on government to be our god. It cannot meet the deepest needs of the human heart.

The Hunger of a New Generation

Consider Generation Z. They are hungry for Jesus. Desperately so. But they want the real deal. They are tired of polished production that feels manufactured. Many are flocking to more historical, liturgical expressions of faith because the message there feels raw and authentic to them. We took seeker-sensitive and stretched it so far that we watered down the gospel until it lost its distinctive flavor.

Church, it is time to become salty again. Jesus said we are the salt of the earth. Salt preserves. Salt flavors. Salt stings when it hits an open wound. If salt loses its saltiness, it is good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Matthew 5:13).

It is time to start calling evil what it is: evil. No sugar-coating. No fear of offense. Truth spoken in love, yes. But truth nonetheless. The world does not need another echo chamber or entertainment venue. It needs the church to be the church.

Society Cannot Afford Our Silence Anymore

Our society simply cannot afford for the church to sit out on these issues any longer. We cannot tolerate evil or compromise with it. We must stare it straight in the face, command it to move, and get to work. Jesus promised that we would do even greater things than He did (John 14:12). Where is that church in the United States today? We see glimpses of it in third-world countries, where believers face persecution for their faith yet remain boldly active in their communities. They heal the sick, cast out demons, feed the poor, all while risking their lives. Their faith is alive, vibrant, uncompromised.

But here in America, the church has too often become absorbed in crafting a good message and spending the workweek preparing for yet another Sunday service. Why does church have to look this way? I do not know the full answer, but I know this: we cannot forsake the gathering of believers, as Hebrews 10:25 instructs. That command was never meant to water down our action or lull us into spiritual sleep. I do not believe so. Instead, it should fuel us for the mission ahead.

Look at the early church in Acts. They did life together every single day. Not just Sundays. They shared meals, prayed, taught, served the needy, all in daily fellowship (Acts 2:42-47). Miracles happened. People were added to their number daily. How can we return to that kind of vibrant community? How can we start answering the call of our own neighborhoods, cities, and nation, while stopping the abdication of our Christian responsibility to government?

It starts with recognizing that government, for all its roles, cannot replace the church’s unique calling. We have abdicated too much: education, welfare, moral guidance. As a result, society suffers from broken families, rampant addiction, spiritual emptiness. The church must reclaim its role as the primary agent of transformation. Not through politics alone, though we should vote our values, but through presence. Through action. Through demonstrating the kingdom of God in tangible ways.

How Do We Turn?

So how do we begin making the turn?

First, we look inward. We pray. We repent where we have prioritized program over people, comfort over commission, attraction over transformation.

Second, we re-examine our budgets and calendars. What percentage of our resources goes toward the Sunday event versus going out to serve the hurting in our communities week after week? Shift funds to outreach, mercy ministries, community partnerships.

Third, we equip and release our people. Church is not a weekly show we attend. It is a family on mission. Small groups can become service teams. Men can mentor fatherless boys. Women can adopt widows as spiritual mothers. Congregations can partner with crisis pregnancy centers, food banks, homeless shelters. Not just with money, but with time and presence.

Fourth, we embrace daily fellowship like the Acts church. Encourage house-to-house gatherings, midweek service projects, prayer walks in neighborhoods. Make discipleship a lifestyle, not a program.

Fifth, we confront evil boldly. Speak truth to cultural lies about marriage, life, identity. But do it with compassion, meeting needs as we proclaim the gospel. Greater works await if we step out in faith.

Imagine if every church in America adopted one city block, one apartment complex, one school. Imagine if we became known again as the people who show up when life falls apart. Miracles in our streets. Salvations in our communities. Society transformed not by government edict, but by the power of Christ through His people.

Governments could then focus on infrastructure and justice systems while we reclaim the relational, restorative work we are uniquely called and equipped to do.

A Plea from One Who Loves the Church

This may surprise some of my readers. Some of my critics on the left might even call me a Christian nationalist or zealot for writing this. That is fine. Labels do not concern me. What concerns me most is seeing the bride of Christ step boldly into the glorious purpose for which He redeemed her at such great cost.

I want so much more for God’s people. I want us to answer the call placed on us in the communities we serve. I want the world to look at the church and say, “Those people have the answer we have been searching for.”

Jesus is still the antidote to every problem. But the world will not know it unless we go. Not stay. Not sit. Go.

Church, let us talk. Why the silence? Why the inward focus? Is this the fullness of what Jesus called us to? I do not have every answer. I have questions from a heart that aches to see the church shine as light and salt once more.

What do you think? Have you seen glimpses of churches getting this right? What is holding us back? Drop a comment below. Share your stories. Let us encourage one another toward the mission we were always meant for.

And yes, part 4 of the AWC series is still coming. Thank you for your patience.

How the Machine Responded When Yakima Said No

Part 2 laid out the policy reality. How the Association of Washington Cities consistently claims legislative “wins” that align with progressive priorities, centralize authority in Olympia, and shift costs and consequences onto eastern Washington communities.

Part 3 is about what happens when a city stops playing along.

Because the moment Yakima chose to leave the Association of Washington Cities, the abstract became personal. The theory became practice. And the response from the system revealed far more than any policy position ever could.

Yakima Did Not Drift Away. It Voted Its Way Out.

Yakima’s decision to leave AWC was not casual, accidental, or symbolic.

It happened twice.

That matters, because institutions will forgive a moment of weakness. They do not forgive persistence.

In July, the Yakima City Council voted 7–0 to terminate the city’s membership. Unanimous. Clear. No ambiguity. Councilmembers were staring at real financial constraints and doing what elected officials are supposed to do.

They weighed priorities.

• Is this more important than a park?

• Is this more important than a police officer?

• Is this more important than a firefighter?

For me, the answer is always no.

City government exists to deliver core services. Associations do not outrank public safety, infrastructure, or quality of life. That principle guided the July vote.

That should have ended the matter.

It did not.

The Machine Does Not Accept “No” Easily

Once Yakima said goodbye, the response was immediate and coordinated.

It did not begin with confrontation. It began with emails.

They came from AWC directly. They came from people adjacent to the AWC ecosystem. They came from other membership-based organizations whose influence flows through the same professional channels.

Every message was polite. Every message was framed as concern, clarification, or assistance. But the message beneath them all was the same.

This decision needed to be revisited.

Leaving was not treated as a normal governance choice. It was not respected as a budget prioritization. It was treated as a deviation from accepted behavior, a problem to be solved, an error to be corrected.

What stood out was not just the emails and letters, but the sameness. Yakima was told it misunderstood the value. That it was isolating itself. That it was acting irresponsibly. That remaining inside the system was the adult, professional choice.

Then the escalation came.

Leadership intervened. The president of AWC personally emailed councilmembers. At that moment, a local budget decision had been elevated into an institutional crisis.

The implication was unmistakable.

Yakima was not just leaving. Yakima was breaking a rule.

Pressure Did Not Stay Inside AWC

The pressure soon extended beyond the AWC itself.

Emails and letters arrived from other local and regional organizations that benefit, directly or indirectly, from Yakima’s continued place within the broader association ecosystem. Among them was correspondence from tourism promotion leaders, including a notable letter from John Cooper that warned of potential economic fallout and damaged relationships.

The conversation changed course.

It was no longer centered on whether the AWC actually delivered sufficient value to Yakima. Instead, it turned to questions of alignment, public perception, and the risks of what the city might forfeit by proceeding.

At no point did anyone offer a simple acknowledgment: “We disagree, but we respect your local decision.”

That silence speaks volumes.

If membership were genuinely voluntary and rooted in clear, demonstrated value, the reaction would have been straightforward acceptance, perhaps mild disappointment, followed by moving forward. Organizations truly secure in their worth do not launch coordinated pressure efforts when a member chooses to leave.

What Yakima encountered felt entirely different.

It felt like an exercise in containment.

Peer Pressure Is How the System Enforces Itself

The most intense pressure did not arrive through emails or public letters. It came directly from peers.

At trainings, conferences, and professional gatherings, Yakima’s decision to leave the AWC was never treated as a neutral choice. Conversations grew cooler. Tones shifted. The unspoken message hung in the air: opting out was not merely different. It was wrong.

The analogy is straightforward.

Withdrawing from the AWC felt like canceling a Costco membership while standing in a room full of devoted Costco shoppers. You did not simply conclude it held no value for you. You challenged the very premise. You suggested the bulk savings might not be essential. You implied the exclusive perks could be overstated.

That kind of questioning unsettles people.

In certain circles, the decision was framed less as a legitimate policy difference and more as a breach of professional etiquette. It bordered on a moral lapse. This reaction was no accident.

It was a form of quiet enforcement.

Associations Are Not Just Services. They Are Identity.

There is an uncomfortable truth embedded in the heart of government institutions.

For many public sector professionals, associations like the AWC are far more than practical tools. They form a core part of professional identity.

They supply a shared language, a common set of assumptions, and a collective stamp of legitimacy. Active participation comes to define true professionalism. Simple membership signals seriousness and commitment.

Stepping away disrupts that carefully constructed narrative.

If one city can withdraw and continue to thrive without it, a profoundly unsettling question emerges: What does that reveal about the true necessity of the entire structure?

That question poses a far greater threat than any individual membership vote ever could.

The Second Vote Came Back Through Process, Not Policy

In November, the issue resurfaced. Not because the council asked for reconsideration. A councilmember, with staff guidance, attempted to reintroduce AWC membership through a different budget mechanism, outside of the general fund.

This was staff attempting to keep the membership alive by using bureaucratic maneuvering. The goal was simple: move the expense into other budgets to reduce visibility and remove budgetary pressure from councilmembers. If the membership no longer lived in the general fund, it no longer had to compete directly with parks, police, fire, or basic services.

The intent was obvious.

By shifting the cost, the decision could be made less painful for councilmembers focused on budget concerns. The tradeoffs would be blurred. The scrutiny would be reduced. The membership could survive quietly. It is comical how often councilmembers across the state fail to recognize how consistently they are being influenced by people who are not their constituents. Yakima’s council ultimately decided to buck that trend.

This was not conspiracy. It was institutional instinct. When an institution loses a policy fight, it turns to procedure. When it loses visibility, it seeks obscurity. When it cannot justify value, it relies on process.

The council voted again.

This time, 5–2.

AWC membership was terminated for a second time.

The attempt failed.

But the attempt itself revealed something important. It exposed just how deeply the system resists exit, and how far it will go to preserve itself once challenged.

“It’s Not That Much Money” Is How Bad Spending Survives

One common defense emerged time and again: “It’s not that much money in the grand scheme of things.”

That single phrase reveals everything. When an expenditure cannot be justified by its clear value, measurable outcomes, or direct alignment with public representation, it is instead downplayed as trivial. Too small to scrutinize. Inexpensive enough to retain indefinitely. Familiar enough to protect without question.

This is precisely how bureaucratic creep takes hold.

For some, AWC membership resembled a Costco bulk subscription for city staff: access to training sessions, conferences, professional networking, and that subtle sense of belonging.

But city government is not designed to fund staff perks or institutional comforts.

It exists solely to deliver essential services to the people it serves.

When “Economic Impact” Becomes a Pressure Tactic

As resistance persisted, another argument appeared. AWC claimed Yakima should maintain membership because its annual conference brings economic benefit. Three hundred to five hundred attendees. Roughly $400,000 in gross economic activity.

That sounds impressive until you apply even basic scrutiny.

Gross economic activity is not revenue to the City of Yakima. Most of that money goes to hotels, restaurants, transportation, and incidentals. The city captures only a fraction through sales and lodging taxes. That fraction does not offset the cost of membership.

More importantly, nothing prevents AWC from holding its conference in Yakima regardless of membership status. Yakima’s convention center is among the most affordable in the state. That is why organizations choose it. If AWC wants to host its conference here because it makes financial sense, it still can.

AWC chose to condition the conference on membership.

That was their decision. Yakima did not revoke an invitation. Yakima did not raise prices. Yakima did not restrict access. Yakima simply declined to fund a membership it no longer found valuable.

At that point, the argument stopped being about economics and became about leverage.

Pay the membership, or lose the conference.

That is not partnership.

That is pressure.

What Actual Benefit Was Ever Proven

Throughout this entire debate, one crucial question remains unanswered: What tangible, documented benefit truly compels Yakima to remain a member?

Insurance? Yakima is already self-insured, and no quote was ever provided to demonstrate that pooling would yield any savings.

Legal services? Yakima maintains its own full legal department, while the free statewide resource of MRSC stands readily available to all.

Training? It may be helpful, yet it is far from indispensable, and certainly not worth diverting resources from our community’s core priorities.

No direct, apples-to-apples comparison was offered. No quantifiable savings were identified. No essential capability was shown that Yakima currently lacks.

In the end, what persists is mere habit, familiar comfort, and the weight of institutional expectations.

That is not a genuine need.

That is simply inertia.

Who Do You Answer To

At the end of the day, every city councilmember must confront a single, defining question: Who do you truly answer to? The board of the AWC, or the voters who entrusted you with their voice?

I can only speak for myself: I serve the voters, first and foremost.

Deep down, I believe most councilmembers feel the same, even as the system subtly pulls them in the opposite direction. Organizations like the AWC flourish by fostering a culture of conformity: the notion that belonging is essential for legitimacy, that true professionalism demands unwavering participation, and that daring to step away brands you as irresponsible or rogue.

This is how the invisible box is constructed. One subtle layer at a time. Membership becomes the default norm. Active involvement turns into an unspoken obligation. And any form of dissent? It’s swiftly labeled as dangerous deviation.

Yet Yakima chose to shatter that box. Not out of disdain for collaboration, nor a rejection of valuable expertise. Far from it. We did so because no external organization, no matter how established, holds greater authority than the people who call this city home.

City councils aren’t formed to safeguard associations or uphold institutional traditions. They exist for one purpose: to amplify the voices of their communities, unfiltered and uncompromised.

Where This Goes Next

Part 2 exposed the policy outcomes.

Part 3 exposed the pressure, the process, and the institutional response to dissent.

That leaves one final claim.

The benefits AWC insists justify it all.

In Part 4, we will examine those claims one by one. Insurance. Legal services. Training. Advocacy. Influence.

Not with tradition. Not with assumptions.

If the value is real, it should survive scrutiny.

If it does not, cities deserve to know that too.

If you spend any time reading Association of Washington Cities legislative updates, one thing becomes clear very quickly: AWC loves to declare victory.

Each session, the organization publishes summaries highlighting bills it “shaped,” “improved,” or “successfully advocated for.” These are presented as proof that membership dues are working and that cities are better off because AWC was in the room.

But when you stop reading the headlines and start reading the bills, a different story emerges.

Many of the policies AWC touts as wins are progressive, west-side driven priorities that impose real costs on eastern Washington cities, while delivering little to no benefit in return.

Let’s look at some of the most commonly cited examples.

Housing “Wins” That Override Local Control

HB 1110 and the Middle Housing Mandates

One of AWC’s most celebrated policy areas is housing. The organization routinely claims success in shaping statewide housing legislation, particularly bills that mandate increased density in traditionally single-family zones.

A flagship example is HB 1110, the so-called “middle housing” bill.

AWC has publicly framed its involvement in HB 1110 as a win for cities, arguing that it secured amendments and flexibility while advancing affordability.

Here is what HB 1110 actually does.

The bill requires cities to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in areas historically zoned for single-family homes, regardless of local planning decisions. While there are some population-based distinctions, the core principle is clear: the state decides density, not local governments.

Why AWC calls this a win:

• The bill aligns with Olympia’s housing density agenda

• AWC was involved in negotiating amendments

• It avoids placing cities entirely outside the process

Why it is not a win for eastern Washington:

• It removes zoning authority from local elected officials

• It imposes infrastructure costs without funding

• It assumes urban housing demand models that do not exist in rural markets

Eastern Washington cities are not suffering from the same housing dynamics as Seattle or Tacoma. In many cases, the barrier is not zoning, but financing, labor, water infrastructure, and market demand.

HB 1110 forces cities to plan for density they may never see, while still requiring them to build and maintain infrastructure for it.

That is not local control. That is state preemption with a friendly press release.

Housing Supply Bills That Ignore the Real Bottleneck

SB 5466 and Related “Streamlining” Measures

AWC often points to bills like SB 5466 and similar housing supply legislation as proof it is helping cities “cut red tape” and speed up housing production. These measures are marketed as common-sense fixes to permitting delays, with the implication that local governments are the primary obstacle to building.

That framing does not match reality in eastern Washington, and it certainly does not reflect the lived experience of cities like Yakima.

Let’s be clear. Yes, Yakima and other cities sometimes experience permitting delays. But those delays are rarely caused by indifference, incompetence, or excessive local process. They are caused by staffing shortages, and those shortages are a direct consequence of state policy.

Over the last several legislative cycles, Olympia has steadily increased the cost of employing public servants. Expanded labor mandates, benefit requirements, compliance obligations, and liability exposure have made it dramatically more expensive to hire and retain qualified staff. Cities are competing with the private sector and larger jurisdictions for planners, engineers, and inspectors, often without the budget flexibility to match wages or benefits.

In that context, “streamlining” bills like SB 5466 miss the point entirely.

Why AWC calls these bills a win:

• They reduce statutory timelines and procedural steps

• They appeal to lawmakers eager to show progress on housing

• They allow AWC to say it helped cities move faster

Why they do not solve the real problem for cities like Yakima:

• You cannot process permits faster without people to process them

• Mandated timelines do not create staff or funding

• Pressure without resources increases burnout and turnover

When the state responds to staffing shortages by tightening deadlines instead of addressing workforce costs, the result is not efficiency. It is stress, mistakes, and higher legal risk for cities already stretched thin.

From a Yakima perspective, the irony is hard to ignore. Olympia passes bill after bill that raises the cost of employment. AWC supports or acquiesces to those policies. Then the state turns around and blames cities for being slow, offering “streamlining” as the solution.

That is not a housing fix. It is a deflection.

Even worse, these bills tend to benefit large developers operating in west-side markets where scale and margins can absorb regulatory churn. Small builders and rural communities do not see the same upside. They inherit the compliance pressure without the volume to justify it.

AWC frames SB 5466 and similar measures as pragmatic compromise. From eastern Washington, they look like policies designed for urban systems, imposed on cities with fewer staff, tighter budgets, and less flexibility.

If Olympia and AWC were serious about addressing permitting delays in cities like Yakima, they would focus on:

• Reducing unfunded employment mandates

• Expanding flexible funding for planning staff

• Allowing local governments to set realistic timelines based on capacity

Instead, they choose speed mandates and call it a win.

Yakima does not need lectures about efficiency. It needs relief from policies that make it harder every year to keep qualified people on payroll.

That distinction matters, and it is one AWC consistently glosses over.

Homelessness “Wins” That Export Urban Failure to Rural Cities

AWC also routinely claims victories in the area of homelessness and behavioral health. These wins are usually framed as compassionate, pragmatic, and city-friendly.

In practice, many of these policies reflect Seattle-style homelessness management models that do not translate to eastern Washington communities and, in some cases, actively make conditions worse.

What AWC Claims as Wins

Across multiple legislative sessions, the Association of Washington Cities has highlighted homelessness and housing-related outcomes as evidence of effective advocacy. In legislative wrap-ups, policy briefings, and post-session summaries, AWC has routinely framed certain statewide actions as positive developments for cities.

These include:

• The expansion and implementation of statewide Right to Counsel protections for tenants, which AWC did not meaningfully oppose and later framed as part of Washington’s broader housing stability framework

• Increased statutory limits on local authority over encampments and public camping, often described as reducing liability and creating uniform statewide standards

• State funding for homelessness response programs tied primarily to Housing First models, which AWC has promoted as new resources for cities

• Restrictions on local enforcement tools related to public disorder, framed as consistency, risk reduction, or compliance with state and court standards

In each case, AWC has characterized these outcomes as helping cities by:

• Reducing legal exposure

• Increasing access to state funding

• Creating uniform rules across jurisdictions

That framing deserves closer scrutiny.

Because while AWC may not have originated every one of these policies, it also did not use its institutional influence to challenge or meaningfully resist them, particularly on behalf of smaller, rural, or eastern Washington cities. In many cases, AWC’s advocacy focused on shaping implementation rather than questioning whether the policy itself made sense statewide.

There is a difference between shaping a bill and defending local governments from its consequences.

Eastern Washington cities are living with those consequences.

Right to Counsel and Eviction Policy (Senate Bill 5160)

Compassion Framed, Consequences Ignored

One of the most significant housing and eviction reforms enacted in Washington in recent years is the statewide Right to Counsel law for low-income tenants facing eviction. On paper, the policy is straightforward: tenants who qualify financially are guaranteed legal representation in unlawful detainer proceedings.

While the Association of Washington Cities did not originate this legislation, it also did not meaningfully oppose it, and has since framed Right to Counsel as part of Washington’s broader housing stability framework. In Olympia and west-side media, the policy is routinely described as humane, stabilizing, and a necessary correction to an imbalanced eviction system.

That framing resonates in large urban jurisdictions with deep legal infrastructure and expansive rental markets.

It does not translate cleanly east of the Cascades.

Why AWC Calls Right to Counsel a “Win”

From AWC’s perspective, Right to Counsel checks several political and institutional boxes.

First, it aligns neatly with progressive housing stability goals that dominate legislative discourse in Olympia. Actively opposing tenant protections carries political risk in a legislature where urban districts set the tone, and AWC has strong incentives to avoid being positioned on the wrong side of that debate.

Second, by not meaningfully opposing Right to Counsel legislation, AWC reduces pressure on cities to publicly fight tenant-focused policies. This posture helps preserve access and credibility with lawmakers who frame housing primarily through a civil rights lens.

Third, Right to Counsel legislation is typically accompanied by state funding commitments. On paper, legal representation is paid for by the state rather than cities, allowing the policy to be framed as a benefit without a direct municipal price tag.

Taken together, these dynamics make Right to Counsel a politically low-cost position for a statewide organization seeking to maintain relevance and goodwill in Olympia.

But those are institutional incentives, not outcome-based ones.

Why the Policy Plays Out Differently in Eastern Washington

In practice, Right to Counsel does not simply provide legal help. It fundamentally changes the eviction timeline, the risk calculus for landlords, and the behavior of small rental markets.

In eastern Washington cities like Yakima, rental markets are:

• Smaller

• Less liquid

• Dominated by individual or small-scale landlords

• Far less able to absorb prolonged nonpayment

When eviction proceedings are extended through mandatory legal representation, cases take longer to resolve. That delay may be manageable in Seattle, where large corporate landlords and higher margins can spread risk across thousands of units.

In Yakima, it often cannot.

For small landlords, a single nonpaying tenant can mean months of lost income, legal uncertainty, and mounting costs. Faced with that reality, many respond rationally, not ideologically.

They:

• Exit the rental market entirely

• Convert units to short-term or owner-occupied housing

• Raise screening thresholds

• Decline to rent to higher-risk tenants

None of those outcomes reduce homelessness.

They reduce available housing.

The Perverse Effect on Housing Access

One of the least discussed consequences of Right to Counsel is that it shrinks the supply of informal, flexible housing, which is often where lower-income tenants in eastern Washington actually find shelter.

When landlords become more cautious, the people who lose access first are those with:

• Prior evictions

• Criminal histories

• Untreated addiction

• Mental health challenges

These are precisely the populations policymakers claim to be helping.

The result is a paradox. Eviction timelines are extended, but housing access becomes more restricted. Tenants may remain in units longer during disputes, but once removed, they face a colder, tighter market with fewer willing landlords.

Cities then see:

• Longer vacancy cycles

• Fewer available units at the low end

• More unsheltered individuals cycling through public spaces

From the outside, it looks like housing instability persists. From the inside, the policy has shifted risk away from tenants and onto landlords who respond by withdrawing supply.

AWC frames this as housing stability. Eastern Washington experiences it as market distortion.

Root Causes Are Delayed, Not Addressed

Another critical difference between west-side and east-side contexts is what actually drives housing instability.

In cities like Yakima, eviction is often not primarily a legal issue. It is a symptom of:

• Addiction

• Untreated mental illness

• Job loss tied to seasonal or agricultural work

• Family disruption

• Economic shocks

Right to Counsel does nothing to address these root causes. It does not provide treatment. It does not stabilize income. It does not increase housing stock. It delays a legal outcome without changing the underlying conditions.

In some cases, delay can be helpful. In many others, it simply prolongs instability for both tenant and landlord.

Seattle’s legal ecosystem includes wraparound services, nonprofits, and public systems that can sometimes bridge that gap. Yakima does not have that scale or infrastructure.

What works as a legal intervention in Seattle often functions as a temporal bandage in eastern Washington, pushing problems forward rather than resolving them.

Funding on Paper, Costs in Reality

AWC frequently highlights state funding for Right to Counsel when discussing eviction reform, reinforcing the perception that the policy does not impose direct financial obligations on cities.

In a narrow sense, that is true. Cities are not writing checks for legal representation, which is funded by the state through contracted legal service providers.

But the downstream impacts on cities are real.

Longer eviction timelines and increased legal complexity contribute to secondary pressures that cities must manage, including:

• Increased demand for code enforcement and outreach

• Greater visibility of unsheltered homelessness

• Additional strain on police, parks, and public spaces

• Political pressure to respond without corresponding tools or funding

These impacts do not appear as line items labeled “Right to Counsel” in city budgets. They show up indirectly, through staffing demands, public safety costs, and community impacts.

Those downstream costs are not reimbursed by the state.

A One-Size Policy Applied to Unequal Markets

None of this requires malicious intent from AWC. The organization does not need to work against eastern Washington for these outcomes to occur.

It only needs to reflect the priorities of the cities that dominate its governance and advocacy.

Right to Counsel is a policy designed around large, urban rental markets with deep legal infrastructure. Applied statewide, it produces uneven results.

AWC celebrates the principle. Eastern Washington manages the consequences.

Compassion without local discretion is not compassion. It is ideology applied uniformly to unequal conditions.

And once again, the pattern holds.

AWC declares a win.

Eastern Washington gets the bill.

Encampment Policy and Limits on Local Authority

When “Uniformity” Means Fewer Tools

AWC has often accommodated, or not meaningfully opposed, legislation and court-aligned policy frameworks that limit local authority over public camping and encampment management. These policies are typically advanced in Olympia under the banners of civil rights compliance, constitutional constraints, or liability reduction.

In legislative summaries and implementation guidance, AWC has tended to frame these outcomes as providing clarity and protection for cities, particularly by reducing legal exposure and establishing uniform statewide standards.

From an institutional perspective, these outcomes are often described as beneficial because:

• Cities are shielded from certain categories of lawsuits

• State standards reduce political and legal uncertainty

• Enforcement responsibility is diffused across jurisdictions

For eastern Washington cities, the consequences are very different.

Smaller cities often lack:

• Adequate shelter capacity to meet state-defined thresholds

• Dedicated outreach teams and service-provider networks

• Legal departments to manage complex compliance requirements

As a result, encampments tend to concentrate in visible public spaces, near schools, parks, waterways, and downtown corridors. Local governments lose discretion to respond to community concerns in ways that reflect local conditions and capacity.

Seattle has scale. It has outreach teams, nonprofit infrastructure, legal departments, and sustained funding streams dedicated to homelessness response.

Eastern Washington does not.

When the state imposes rules designed around Seattle’s infrastructure, smaller cities are left with fewer tools and higher visibility impacts. What may be manageable in a large metropolitan system becomes destabilizing in a smaller community.

AWC frames this as consistency.

Eastern Washington experiences it as constraint.

Housing First Funding Without Accountability

Money That Comes With Strings and Blind Spots

AWC frequently highlights state funding for homelessness response programs as evidence that cities are being supported.

The fine print matters.

Much of this funding is structured around policy assumptions that do not translate well to eastern Washington. In practice, these programs often:

• Prioritize Housing First–oriented models

• De-prioritize enforcement-first or treatment-first approaches

• Require reporting, compliance, and administrative structures that small cities struggle to staff

From an institutional standpoint, this framework aligns neatly with AWC’s incentives.

It tracks with state and west-side policy consensus.

Funding reads well in legislative summaries.

And it avoids ideological conflict with Olympia.

For eastern Washington cities, the mismatch is stark.

Housing First models assume housing availability that often does not exist.

Behavioral health and addiction treatment capacity is limited or absent.

Underlying drivers of homelessness are not addressed at the scale required.

As a result, eastern Washington cities are frequently forced to choose between accepting funding that does not match local needs or declining resources altogether.

That is not support.

It is conditional compliance.

The Core Problem: Policy Built for Seattle, Applied Everywhere

None of this requires malicious intent.

AWC does not have to actively work against eastern Washington for this outcome to occur. It only has to reflect the priorities of the cities that dominate its board and advocacy.

Homelessness policy in Washington State is built around Seattle’s assumptions:

• Large service networks

• High housing density

• Extensive nonprofit infrastructure

• Tolerance for visible disorder

Eastern Washington cities operate in a completely different reality.

When AWC claims homelessness “wins,” what it is often celebrating is alignment with Olympia and Puget Sound political expectations, not outcomes that improve safety, order, or recovery in smaller communities.

Compassion Without Local Control Is Not Compassion

Eastern Washington voters are not heartless. They want people off the streets. They want addiction treated. They want mental illness addressed.

What they do not want is policy that:

• Removes local discretion

• Ignores capacity constraints

• Normalizes disorder as inevitable

AWC’s homelessness wins frequently prioritize optics and liability reduction over results. That may satisfy Olympia. It does not satisfy communities dealing with the consequences.

Once again, the pattern holds.

AWC declares a win.

Eastern Washington absorbs the cost.

Climate Policy Wins That Function as Unfunded Mandates

Climate Commitment Act Alignment and Environmental Regulations

AWC has repeatedly highlighted its role in climate and environmental policy, often framing its advocacy as ensuring cities are treated as “partners” in the implementation of statewide climate goals.

This posture has included support for, or accommodation of, policy frameworks connected to the Climate Commitment Act, statewide emissions reduction targets, and associated environmental compliance regimes.

In legislative summaries and implementation guidance, AWC has framed these outcomes as successes because:

• Cities are included in implementation conversations

• Some flexibility or phased timelines are secured

• State funding streams are promised to assist compliance

For eastern Washington cities, the impacts are materially different.

Compliance costs are real and immediate.

Funding is often delayed, competitive, or insufficient.

Rural cities face significantly higher per-capita costs to comply.

Environmental regulations written for dense urban environments do not scale cleanly to rural geographies. Water systems, land-use patterns, and utility infrastructure in eastern Washington are fundamentally different.

Large west-side cities can absorb compliance through dedicated staff, consultants, and broader tax bases. Small cities cannot.

AWC frames this as responsible stewardship.

Eastern Washington cities experience it as an unfunded mandate with a sustainability label.

Labor and Employment Wins That Hit Small Cities Hardest

Expansions of Employment Mandates

AWC frequently promotes its role in shaping labor and employment legislation, including expansions of worker protections, benefit requirements, and regulatory standards.

These bills are often framed as fairness measures.

Why AWC supports them:

• They align with west-side political priorities

• They are popular in Olympia

• They avoid cities being portrayed as opposing workers

Why they hurt eastern Washington cities:

• Small cities lack HR departments and legal teams

• Increased mandates raise payroll costs

• Budget pressure forces cuts elsewhere

For a city with a limited general fund, every new mandate matters. Dollars spent complying with labor regulations are dollars not spent on police, fire, roads, or parks.

AWC frames these policies as neutral or beneficial. In reality, they disproportionately impact cities with the least financial flexibility.

Policing and Public Safety Policy Silence

The Absence of Advocacy Is Also a Position

Perhaps just as telling as the bills AWC actively engages on are the areas where it is notably quiet.

Eastern Washington cities have repeatedly raised concerns about:

• Police staffing shortages

• Public safety reforms passed without local input

• Liability exposure for officers and cities

AWC’s advocacy in these areas has been cautious at best.

Why:

• Public safety policy is politically sensitive in Olympia

• West-side cities often support reform-first approaches

• Aggressive advocacy would fracture the coalition

The result is an organization that claims to represent cities, while declining to forcefully advocate on one of the most pressing issues facing eastern Washington communities.

Silence, in this case, is alignment.

The Pattern Is the Point

Each of these examples follows the same pattern.

A bill advances Olympia’s progressive policy agenda.

AWC helps shape it at the margins.

The organization declares a win.

Eastern Washington cities absorb the cost.

And that brings us back to the question at the heart of this series.

If an organization consistently celebrates policies that do not work for your community, why are you paying it to speak on your behalf?

This is not accidental. It is the logical outcome of an organization whose governance structure is dominated by west-side representation.

AWC does not have to conspire against Eastern Washington. It only has to follow the votes.

Which leads to the unavoidable conclusion.

These are not conservative wins.

They are not rural wins.

They are not Eastern Washington wins.

They are progressive victories wrapped in municipal branding.

And that is why Yakima’s decision to leave matters.

In Part III, we examine what happens when a city finally asks whether paying to be outvoted makes sense, and why more cities may soon follow.

Every organization has a tagline. The Association of Washington Cities has one it repeats constantly, in testimony, in press releases, and in conversations with local officials.

“We represent all 281 cities and towns in Washington State.”

On its face, that statement sounds reasonable. Cooperative, even. It implies balance, fairness, and a shared voice across a geographically and politically diverse state. For many years, most city officials simply accepted it. Membership was automatic. Dues were paid. The machinery ran quietly in the background.

But for elected officials east of the Cascades, especially those governing conservative or rural communities, something has felt off for a long time.

You attend the meetings.

You participate in the calls.

You read the legislative updates.

And yet, when policy positions are taken, when advocacy priorities are set, and when Olympia acts, the outcomes consistently reflect west-side priorities.

This series exists because that disconnect is no longer theoretical.

It is structural.

From Yakima’s Practical Roots to Olympia’s Political Gravity

The Association of Washington Cities was founded in 1933 in Yakima, during one of the most difficult economic periods in American history. Cities were struggling to survive. Prohibition had just ended. Local governments needed coordination on liquor control, tax distribution, and basic governance in an era when state authority was expanding rapidly.

AWC was not born out of ideology. It was born out of necessity.

It was local.

It was practical.

It was rooted in eastern Washington realities.

That origin story matters because it reveals what the organization was meant to be. A forum for cities to protect themselves, not a vehicle for imposing policy preferences.

Over the decades, Washington State changed. Population growth concentrated west of the Cascades. Political power followed. Olympia increasingly legislated through statewide mandates rather than local discretion.

And slowly, almost imperceptibly, AWC changed with it.

The shift did not require malice. It required incentives. More people meant more cities. More cities meant more dues. More dues meant more influence. Governance followed population, and advocacy followed governance.

By the time many eastern Washington cities noticed, the balance was already gone.

The Board Math That Explains the Outcomes

If you want to understand any organization, stop listening to its mission statements and start looking at its board.

AWC’s Board of Directors consists of 25 members. These individuals approve legislative agendas, adopt policy positions, and set the tone for what the organization will fight for or against in Olympia.

Using the actual current board roster and the cities each member represents, the east-west breakdown is exact and unambiguous.

Seven board members come from cities east of the Cascades.

Eighteen board members come from cities west of the Cascades.

That is not a narrow margin. That is control.

Seventy-two percent of the board reflects west-side cities. Twenty-eight percent reflects eastern Washington.

This is not about personalities or intent. It is about voting power. When urban and rural priorities diverge, the outcome is predetermined before debate begins.

You can have the conversation.

You can raise concerns.

You can offer amendments.

But when the vote is taken, the math decides.

Representation Without Influence Is Not Representation

AWC often responds to criticism by pointing out that eastern Washington cities have seats at the table.

That is true, in the narrowest sense.

What they do not acknowledge is that a seat without leverage is symbolic. It provides the appearance of inclusion while preserving control.

In theory, AWC is a statewide coalition. In practice, it operates as a west-side consensus organization with statewide funding.

This is not unusual in Washington politics. But it is rarely stated out loud.

The question is not whether AWC allows eastern Washington cities to participate. It does.

The question is whether participation translates into outcomes.

The answer, increasingly, is no.

And that brings us to the next issue. If eastern Washington is structurally outvoted, what policies are being advanced in its name?

That is the subject of Part II.

The Shot That Changed Everything

On September 10, 2025, at 12:30 PM Mountain Time, a single bullet ended the life of my friend Charlie Kirk. He was 31 years old, speaking to a crowd of 3,000 young conservatives at Utah Valley University, doing what he loved most: engaging with students who disagreed with him at his signature “Prove Me Wrong” table.

The shot that rang out in Utah broke my heart.

But it didn’t break my spirit for this country.

I took a break from writing. From organizing. From everything. When you lose someone who showed you what real commitment looks like, someone who became a friend through the work, the grief hits different.

But I knew what Charlie would say if he could see me sitting on the sidelines. He’d tell me to get back to work. He’d tell me that the fight doesn’t stop because we took casualties. He’d tell me that if we quit, then his assassin wins.

So as the Political Director of WAGOP, I threw myself into the 2025 elections. I personally worked 43 days straight. Hitting doors. Making phone calls. Organizing teams. Training volunteers.

And we won. WAGOP candidates won 51 out of 84 school board races in one of the bluest states in America. We won city council races. We built infrastructure that will deliver more wins in 2026.

That’s what Charlie would have wanted. Not grief. Not paralysis. Work.

Who Charlie Was

Let me be clear about something: Charlie Kirk wasn’t just another conservative talking head. He was the real deal.

Trump got it right when he said “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.” That wasn’t political flattery. That was fact.

Starting Turning Point USA at just 18 years old, Charlie understood something that establishment Republicans were too cowardly or stupid to grasp: you can’t win a culture war by surrendering the culture. While the GOP was writing off college campuses as lost causes, Charlie was building an army there.

His “Prove Me Wrong” tables became iconic because they were revolutionary. The left controls academia, the media, entertainment, and big tech. They’ve spent decades telling young people that conservatives are racist, sexist, hateful bigots. And what did most Republican leaders do? They whined about it from safe distances.

Charlie showed up. He sat down in the middle of enemy territory. He invited their best arguments. He debated them with facts, with humor, with respect they often didn’t deserve and never reciprocated. And millions of young Americans watched him absolutely dismantle their professors’ lies with a smile on his face.

By 2024, Turning Point USA had become one of the most powerful grassroots organizations in Republican politics. The ground game Charlie built in swing states delivered Trump’s victory.

And now he’s gone. Murdered for his beliefs.

The Socialist Problem

Two months after Charlie’s assassination, the 2025 elections delivered a gut punch.

Katie Wilson was elected mayor of Seattle. Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City. Both are self-described socialists. The very campus radicals Charlie spent years debating are now running two of America’s largest cities.

These aren’t “progressive Democrats.” These are actual socialists who openly campaign on dismantling capitalism, defunding police, and implementing the Green New Deal at the municipal level.

And here’s what that tells us: we can’t wait for another Charlie to save us. Katie Wilson and Zohran Mamdani won because the left built infrastructure, trained organizers, and never stopped working. They didn’t need one charismatic leader. They had an army.

We need to build our own army. In every city. On every campus. With or without Charlie, the fight continues.

The Self-Governance Lesson

Here’s what Charlie understood better than anyone: you build a movement by training people, not by fighting for them.

Charlie was extraordinary. But the real genius of what he built wasn’t just his own platform. It was showing millions of young conservatives that they could engage, debate, and win. He didn’t create followers. He created leaders.

The Founders understood that a republic requires citizens capable of self-governance. People who don’t need a single leader to do their thinking for them. Charlie embodied that. He taught young people to think critically, to defend their beliefs, to engage in the arena.

Now it’s our turn to prove he succeeded.

As WAGOP Political Director, I saw firsthand what happens when people stop waiting for someone to save them and start doing the work themselves. Our school board strategy worked because we had clear targets, dedicated volunteers, and relentless execution.

We’re going to multiply that. In every county. In every city. In every race that matters. Charlie showed us how. Now we show him we were paying attention.

What We Do Now

If we actually believe in the principles Charlie fought for, liberty, limited government, free speech, individual responsibility, then here’s what we need to do:

Build institutional resilience
Turning Point must become an organization that develops many leaders. Charlie built the platform. Now it needs to outlive him. Erika Kirk and her team need our support, not our pity.

Distribute the workload
Charlie’s daily show, campus tours, debate appearances, social media presence. This was inhuman. No one person should carry that again. We need ten people each doing a tenth of what Charlie did.

Create participants, not spectators
Charlie was brilliant at creating content. Millions watched. Now we need those millions to become thousands of activists. WAGOP candidates won because volunteers showed up and did the work. That’s the model.

Get aggressive about winning
While we were mourning, Katie Wilson and Zohran Mamdani won two of America’s biggest cities. That cannot happen again. The enemy doesn’t care about our grief. They’re organizing. We need to be organizing harder.

Protect each other
Charlie was killed at an event that lacked basic security. Witness Tyler McGettigan told NBC News he was surprised there were no metal detectors. That cannot happen again. Every conservative event needs proper security. We’re at war, even if only one side is willing to use violence.

The Challenge

If you’re reading this and you benefited from Charlie’s work, if you watched his debates, listened to his show, attended his events, you have a responsibility now.

You can’t just consume conservative content anymore. You have to create it.
You can’t just watch campus debates anymore. You have to participate in them.
You can’t just share viral videos anymore. You have to make the case yourself.
You can’t just vote anymore. You have to organize.
You can’t just sit on the sidelines, we need you to learn how to self-govern.

Charlie made it look easy, but it wasn’t. It required courage, preparation, and relentless effort. He can’t carry that burden alone anymore because he’s not here. Now it falls to all of us.

Conclusion

I knew Charlie. I can tell you what he’d want from us now.

He wouldn’t want us stuck in grief. He wouldn’t want the movement to die with him. He wouldn’t want us seeking revenge or becoming bitter.

He’d want us on campus quads having conversations. He’d want us knocking on doors for school board races. He’d want us building local chapters, hosting events, engaging with people who disagree. He’d want us living out the principles of liberty, faith, and free speech that he spent his life promoting.

Most of all, he’d want us to pick up the work he can no longer do.

The void Charlie left is real. It’s massive. It cannot be filled by any one person.

But it can be filled by all of us if we choose to step up.

President Trump proclaimed October 14, 2025, what would have been Charlie’s 32nd birthday, as a National Day of Remembrance, and awarded Charlie the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously. That’s beautiful. That’s deserved.

But honors don’t win elections. The work continues, and it falls to us.

The 2024 elections delivered the victories Charlie worked for. The 2025 elections showed us what happens when we lose our best organizer. Katie Wilson runs Seattle. Zohran Mamdani runs NYC. We won school boards in Washington but lost major cities to socialists.

Mixed results. Clear lessons. The fight continues.

Charlie showed us how to fight for what we believe in. Now we have to show that his work lives on through what we do next.

He can’t be here to lead it anymore.

So we lead it ourselves.

That’s what self-governance means. That’s what liberty requires. That’s what Charlie would want.

Rest in peace, Charlie. We’re taking it from here.

Charlie Kirk’s Murder: A Personal Loss, A National Wake-Up Call

On September 10, 2025, my friend Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. At 31, he was a husband, a father, a warrior for free speech, taking on college campuses with his Prove Me Wrong debates. When that bullet stole him, it didn’t just break his wife Erika’s heart, it shattered something in all of us in America. The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was caught quick, but the damage is done. Personally, like many others, I have broken into tears many times this week. This was an attack on our God given right to stand up and speak, no matter who we are.

Here in Eastern Washington, we are no strangers to being dismissed by the Western side of the state, our values mocked by those who do not understand us. Charlie understood. He stood beside us and spoke for us. Now he is gone, taken by the same hatred we see festering in so many places. Some, shamefully, even cheered online. That behavior has consequences, and rightly so.

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 report warns that extremists target anyone who dares to speak out. Violence against people for their beliefs is not just a headline, it is a warning that freedom is fragile. We cannot let any life be taken in vain.

Erika Kirk, Charlie’s wife, put it powerfully: “The evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done. You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife. The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.”

School Shootings: Our Kids Deserve Better

This isn’t just about Charlie, and don’t let anyone tell you conservatives only care about one tragedy. Every innocent life taken is a wound on our soul. School shootings are ripping our kids from us, 100 incidents in 2025, 32 dead, 98 wounded. On the same day, a Colorado kid shot two classmates before ending his own life.

We’re not here to play the blame game. This is about the darkness in our culture, hate spewed online, division stoked by loudmouths who profit off chaos. Our kids are drowning in it, and some lash out in ways that haunt us all. We’ve got to fight for a world where schools are sanctuaries, not slaughterhouses. That starts with us, demanding better, refusing to let evil win.

Political Violence: Evil Doesn’t Pick Sides

Political violence is a plague, and it is not a partisan issue. Between 2024 and 2025 alone, we have seen attempted assassinations of President Trump, attacks on congressmen, plots against journalists, Democratic state representatives gunned down, and now the assassination of Charlie it’s part of a sick pattern. The Washington Post calls it a new age of political violence, and they’re right. Scroll through X, and it’s a war zone of words, neighbors calling neighbors traitors or extremists. That’s not America. That’s not us.

This isn’t about left or right. Evil doesn’t care who you vote for. It thrives when we tear each other apart. Experts warn each act of violence fuels the next, a wildfire we’ve got to stomp out. We’re not here to say I told you so. We’re here to say no more. No one, liberal, conservative, or anything else, should die for their beliefs.

Rhetoric: Stop Fanning the Flames

Words are the spark that lights this fire. Across America, the rhetoric’s turned vicious. Call someone a fascist, commie, or enemy of the people, and you’re not just arguing, you’re arming hate. Charlie was smeared as a hate-monger by his enemies, and I can’t help but think that made his killer feel righteous. I’m not for shutting anyone up, I’m for talking like we’re neighbors, not combatants. Social media’s a cesspool, turning debates into death threats. We’ve got to cool this down, not because we’re soft, but because we’re strong enough to choose better.

Government Weaponization: Betraying Our Trust

Then there’s the government, twisted into a club to bash opponents. As a conservative, I’ve watched agencies under Obama and Biden go after folks like me, Senator Grassley called it out, saying taxpayer money funded this nonsense. But let’s not kid ourselves, some on our side play dirty too. With plans to turn the DOJ into a loyalist machine, make my blood boil. That’s not the limited government I signed up for. It’s betrayal, plain and simple.

In Yakima, we just want to live, raise our kids, work, run our farms, worship in peace, without some D.C. suit labeling us extremists because of our vote. The White House and some in Congress are pushing reforms to stop this abuse, but it’s not happening fast enough. We need a government that protects us all, not one that picks winners and losers based on politics. Labels like insurrectionist or radical, or a threat to democracy have to go, they’re fuel for division, and I’m done with it.

Rise Up: A Fire to Reclaim Our Country

Enough is enough. This is our line in the sand. We are not only mourning Charlie or the children lost to school shootings; we are standing for every innocent life and every voice silenced by fear. This is not about scoring points, it is about ending the evil that has taken root. We reject it with every fiber of our being, across this great nation.

Charlie Kirk was my friend, and his fight for free speech is now ours. We will honor him by speaking boldly, loving fiercely, and standing united. We want our children safe in school, our streets free of violence, and our government serving the people rather than the powerful. We want neighbors helping neighbors, not hating them. Let us take that fire and spread it, building an America where no one fears for their life because of their beliefs.

This is our moment. Rise up, America. Reject hate, resist evil. For Charlie, for our kids, for our future, we refuse to let division win. Let us take our country back, together.

We must end the weaponization of labels and government. No one should ever face violence for exercising their God-given right to speak. This climate of hostility and intimidation has gone too far. Leaders must stand up, speak out, and demand accountability. Silence in the face of violence is complicity. If we do not draw the line here, then when?

I’ll close with this, I hope we can come together, remembering our shared love for country, for one another, and for all of humanity. I pray this time will renew our commitment to kindness and to living out the hope we find in Christ. And if you do not yet know Jesus, Charlie was all about Jesus and wanted everyone to know Jesus. My prayer for our country is that we discover Jesus.

The Background: A Map That "Cracked" Latino Votes

It all started with Washington's 2021 redistricting, post-2020 Census. The state's bipartisan Redistricting Commission drew Legislative District 15 (LD 15) in the Yakima Valley, a region with a growing Latino population tied to agriculture and the Yakama Nation. Latinos were a slim majority of voting-age citizens in the district, sounds promising, right? Not so, said Latino voters led by Susan Soto Palmer. In January 2022, they sued, arguing the map violated Section 2 of the VRA by "cracking" their community, splitting politically active Latino areas and including low-turnout zones, diluting their electoral clout.

A four-day bench trial in June 2022 featured testimony from commissioners and voting experts. The plaintiffs showed that while Latinos made up just over half of LD 15's voters, the map cherry-picked areas with historically low Latino turnout while excluding more engaged communities like Wapato and Toppenish. This setup, they argued, depressed Latino voting strength. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik agreed, ruling in August 2023 that LD 15's configuration violated the VRA. When the commission failed to fix it, Lasnik took the pen himself, unveiling a "Remedial Map" in March 2024. The new map, covering East Yakima to Pasco and including Wapato, Toppenish, Grainger, Sunnyside, and most Yakama Nation lands, was renumbered as District 14 to align with high-turnout presidential election years starting in 2024.

This wasn't a minor tweak, over 500,000 voters across 13 districts in 12 counties were reshuffled, displacing five Republican incumbents (including Latina Sen. Nikki Torres) while leaving Democrats untouched. Enter the intervenors, Jose Trevino, state Rep. Alex Ybarra (R-Quincy), and Ismael Campos, who cried foul, arguing the map prioritized race over compactness and fractured communities of interest, like agricultural hubs. They claimed it was unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and took their fight to the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit's Ruling: A Flawed Victory Lap

On August 27, 2025, a three-judge panel (Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Ronald M. Gould, and John B. Owens, all Democrat-appointed) dropped a 50-page opinion affirming Lasnik's map. Key points:

• Jurisdiction Dodged: The intervenors argued the case belonged in a special three-judge court for constitutional challenges. The panel said no, this was a statutory VRA case, so Lasnik's court was fine.

• Standing Snafu: Only Trevino had standing to challenge the map's Equal Protection implications (as a Hispanic voter moved into the new district), but his claim of vote dilution was dismissed. The other intervenors were sidelined.

• No Racial Gerrymander: The court insisted race wasn't the "predominant factor" in the redraw. Lasnik, they said, balanced traditional criteria like compactness and population equality, showing "thoughtful attention" to details.

Civil rights groups cheered. Simone Leeper from the Campaign Legal Center called it a win for Yakima Valley Latinos to "elect state legislators who best serve their community." MALDEF hailed it as a rejection of a "desperate attempt" to undermine Latino rights. The Yakima Herald-Republic framed it as a near-final victory, noting the map will likely stand for 2026 elections. But not so fast, this narrative is too tidy, and the 9th Circuit's track record screams caution.

Countering the Hype: Why This Isn't the End

The celebratory tone glosses over cracks in the ruling that could collapse under scrutiny. Here's why the story's far from over:

1. The 9th Circuit's Reversal Curse: The 9th Circuit is infamous for getting it wrong. In the 2020-2021 term, SCOTUS reversed 15 of 16 9th Circuit cases, a 94% reversal rate. Even in 2023-2024, they were overturned in 6 of 12 cases. Over the past decade, their reversal rate hovers around 70-80%, the highest of any circuit. From Trump's travel bans to immigration policies, the 9th's liberal leanings (all three judges here were Clinton or Obama picks) often lead to SCOTUS smackdowns. This ruling, with its breezy dismissal of partisan and community concerns, fits the pattern of ideological overreach.

2. Partisan Shenanigans Ignored: The intervenors argued the map's partisan tilt, displacing five GOP legislators while sparing Democrats, was a red flag. The court brushed it off as "objections based on partisanship, not race." But moving 500,000 voters and only hitting Republicans? That's not neutral. Sen. Nikki Torres, a Latina, got booted from her district and called it "gerrymandering at its finest," noting the Latino voting-age population dropped from 52% to 50%. Democrats pushed this map assuming Latinos only vote blue, but the 2024 election proved them wrong, GOP candidates swept all three seats in the redrawn district. That's a truth Democrats don't want to face, and it undercuts their narrative of Latino empowerment.

3. Community Fractures Overlooked: Unifying Latino areas sounds noble, but it split other communities of interest, like agricultural hubs, and may dilute Native American influence despite including Yakama Nation lands. The intervenors argued for compactness, but the sprawling new district prioritizes racial math over geographic coherence. The court's focus on race sidesteps these trade-offs.

4. Shaky Standing Logic: By granting standing only to Trevino and dismissing his claim, the court dodged broader harms.

5. SCOTUS on the Horizon: The intervenors tried for Supreme Court certiorari before judgment in 2023 and could file again post-ruling. They've got a shot, SCOTUS denied their earlier bid but let the map stand for 2024 without prejudice, leaving the door open. A petition could land by late 2025, especially with the Court's conservative majority itching to curb race-based policies.

SCOTUS Showdowns: Race-Based Redistricting in the Crosshairs

The 9th Circuit's ruling is a sitting duck given the Supreme Court's upcoming docket. Several cases could reshape the VRA's role in redistricting, potentially invalidating maps like Washington's:

• Callais v. Landry (Louisiana): Louisiana Republicans are pushing SCOTUS to gut Section 2 of the VRA, arguing that intentionally drawing majority-Black districts violates the Equal Protection Clause, even if meant to fix vote dilution. The Court fast-tracked briefing in August 2025, signaling a potential bombshell for 2026. A ruling against race-based remedies could unravel the Yakima map's logic.

• North Carolina Redistricting Challenges: A 2025 trial alleged GOP maps dilute Black voting power. Appeals are likely to hit SCOTUS, grappling with racial vs. partisan lines, echoing Washington's fight.

• Wisconsin Congressional Maps: A lawsuit demands a redraw before 2026, claiming unconstitutional gerrymandering. VRA arguments could pull it to SCOTUS, testing race-based fixes.

• Broader Trends: Since Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) deemed partisan gerrymandering non-justiciable, states have pushed aggressive redraws. But Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024) tightened rules on race as a factor, and cases from Texas and Florida signal more challenges. The Court's 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling ending affirmative action shows their skepticism of race-conscious policies, bad news for the 9th Circuit's approach.

The Bigger Picture: A House of Cards Waiting to Fall

The Yakima Herald-Republic and civil rights groups want you to believe this is a slam-dunk for “democracy”, but it's a house of cards. The 9th Circuit's history of reversals, combined with SCOTUS's looming crackdown on race-based redistricting, makes this ruling vulnerable. Democrats' assumption that Latinos are a lock for their party crashed hard in 2024's GOP sweep, a fact they're loath to admit. The map might boost Latino turnout in theory, but it fractures communities, tilts partisan scales, and invites higher scrutiny.

Washingtonians deserve maps that balance fairness without playing racial or partisan favorites. Keep an eye on SCOTUS cert petitions by late 2025, especially if Callais rewrites the VRA rulebook. If you're fed up with activist judges and gerrymandering games, drop a comment and subscribe for more deep dives into the fight for fair elections. What's your take, will SCOTUS step in to fix this mess?

Cheers

Party registration trends show meaningful movement. In 2022 the Associated Press reported that more than 1 million voters across 43 states switched to the GOP over the prior year. A newer New York Times analysis, summarized by the Election Law Blog in July 2025, found that between 2020 and 2024 Democrats had a net loss of about 2.1 million registered voters across the 30 party-registration states, while Republicans gained about 2.4 million, with the GOP advantage continuing into 2025.

Success in Washington hinges on speaking to the voters who are moving. The state’s top two system rewards early coalition building to secure a spot in November.

Five factors that matter in Washington

Factor 1: Family and fairness beat tax messaging for switchers

Disillusioned Democrats and independents are not primarily motivated by lower taxes, despite decades of Republican campaigns leaning heavily on tax-cut rhetoric. Surveys consistently show that family security, fairness in opportunity, and the ability to live stable, safe lives matter far more. In February 2025, Pew Research found that 73 percent of Democrats cited health care affordability as a “very big problem,” and a majority of Republicans agreed. Concerns like access to childcare, the stability of local schools, and affordable health care carry more weight than debates about tax brackets.

In Washington, this is especially true in Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma, where urban voters face rising costs of living, concerns about homelessness, and struggles with public safety. Swing voters in the suburbs of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties are also less interested in marginal tax rates and more focused on whether schools are functioning and neighborhoods are safe. For Republicans, reframing economic issues through the lens of family security—“Can you afford a doctor visit, childcare, and feel safe walking your street?”—connects more directly with these voters than abstract fiscal arguments.

Factor 2: Cultural friction is moving moderates and parents

The Democratic Party’s growing emphasis on cultural and identity politics is pushing moderates and parents away. The Voter Study Group has tracked widening divides on issues of race, identity, and gender, showing that cultural polarization is one of the biggest reasons voters are switching affiliation.

For Washington specifically, school policy fights illustrate the point. Parents in suburban districts like Bellevue, Issaquah, and Kent have voiced opposition to curricula they view as excessively ideological or divisive. Concerns over fairness in sports participation, classroom focus, and parental rights resonate broadly across partisan lines. A 2025 Third Way memo highlighted that young men in particular feel alienated by Democratic messaging they perceive as elitist or detached from real-world priorities.

For the GOP, emphasizing parental authority in schools, defending free speech, and rejecting what many see as divisive cultural engineering allows Republicans to connect with switchers who may still lean left on economics but are exhausted by cultural overreach.

Factor 3: Safety, borders, and schools remain high-salience

Public safety, immigration, and education reform are consistently rated as top-tier issues for voters across party lines. In 2024 and into 2025, national and state polling showed the economy, crime, and border security as among the highest priorities for Americans. Washington is no exception. Rising property crime rates in urban centers like Seattle and Spokane, along with fentanyl trafficking across the state, have heightened voter frustration with Democratic leadership.

Voters switching parties often frame these issues in personal terms: “Can my kids walk to school safely?” “Are the police in my community supported?” “Are resources being strained because of border mismanagement?” When Republicans connect family safety with policy solutions backing law enforcement, investing in school security, tightening immigration enforcement they tap into a deep well of voter anxiety that transcends traditional partisan divides.

Factor 4: Perceived elitism hurts Democrats with working families

The Democratic Party’s growing reputation as a party of urban elites, corporate donors, and cultural gatekeepers is alienating many working-class and middle-income families. The New York Times has described this as a “brand crisis,” with registration losses in states across the spectrum, not just battlegrounds. Washington’s working families, particularly outside Seattle and in places like Yakima, Tri-Cities, and Spokane Valley, increasingly feel overlooked by Democratic leaders.

Many switchers describe feeling “talked down to” or dismissed, particularly on issues like faith, family values, and small business regulation. They perceive Democrats as prioritizing ideology and national talking points over practical solutions to local problems. For Republicans, the opportunity lies in positioning themselves as the party of community problem-solving emphasizing transparency in Olympia, accountability in public institutions, and policies that empower everyday families rather than special interests.

Factor 5: Coalition math in a top two state

Washington’s top-two primary system changes campaign strategy fundamentally. Unlike most states, where a party primary guarantees a partisan finalist, here the top two vote-getters advance regardless of party affiliation. That means Republicans must plan early to build coalitions that extend beyond the party base. If two Democrats outpoll a divided Republican field in August, the GOP risks being locked out of the general election entirely.

This makes early outreach to independents and disillusioned Democrats essential. Candidate branding, grassroots operations, and earned media in the first half of 2026 will matter as much as general-election messaging. Building name recognition, raising credibility with suburban families, and positioning GOP candidates as pragmatic problem-solvers ensures they make it to November. In effect, August is the real battleground; November is the finish line.

What the data say about Hispanic voters in 2024

Pew’s validated voter study finds Republicans nearly drew even with Democrats among Hispanic voters in 2024, losing that group by only 3 points, a major shift versus 2016 and 2020. This is consistent with family, work, and safety framing outperforming pure tax messaging with these voters.

Bottom line for 2026

The trends to leverage are clear, registration movement away from Democrats, rising issue salience around family security, culture, and safety, and a primary system that rewards early coalition work. Center your pitch on parents, safer neighborhoods, and practical services, then use taxes as a supporting point, not the headline.

Glenn Morgan’s Evidence: 717,000 Unverified Registrations

Our elections are only as strong as our voter rolls, and Washington’s are shaky. The state’s vote-by-mail system is convenient, but registration is too easy: check a box claiming citizenship, no proof required. Automatic registration at the Department of Licensing or social services adds voters quickly, but it’s prone to errors, especially in Central Washington’s rural communities. That’s where Glenn Morgan’s work comes in.

Morgan, a trusted voice for accountability through We the Governed, has exposed government waste, securing over $645,000 in fines from campaign finance violations. His Washington Voter Research Project analyzed records from 29 of Washington’s 39 counties, covering 990,054 active voter registrations as of August 2025. The numbers are stark: 142,595 registrations (14.41%) lack the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver’s license number, violating the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Apply that statewide, where we have 4,978,825 active voters as of July 31, 2025, per the Secretary of State. That’s 717,448 unverified registrations, rounded to 717,000 for simplicity. Within that, 25,000 in the sampled counties lack both Social Security number and driver’s license data, suggesting about 40,000 statewide. These voters can’t be cross-checked against federal databases like the Social Security Administration or the SAVE system to confirm citizenship.

The Secretary of State’s office admits the issue but claims only 13,000 lack both IDs and that SAVE checks handle the rest. Morgan and Walsh disagree, noting SAVE is slow and unreliable, and 717,000 loose ends is a massive risk. Washington ranks 46th out of 51 (50 states plus Washington, D.C.) in election integrity, per the Heritage Foundation, due to lax verification. Morgan’s data, pulled from county records, isn’t guesswork. It’s a wake-up call.

Recent elections show the stakes. In 2024, Bob Ferguson beat Dave Reichert for governor by 433,550 votes. In 2020, Jay Inslee won re-election over Loren Culp by 545,177 votes. In 2022, Patty Murray defeated Tiffany Smiley for U.S. Senate by about 343,000 votes. Compare those to 717,000 unverified registrations. Even a small fraction of ineligible votes could flip results, as seen in the 2004 governor’s race decided by just 133 votes.

Pros vs. Cons: Why IL26-126 Wins

Let’s break down the pros and cons, exposing why Democratic arguments from state and county leaders fall flat.

Pros:

• Protects Citizenship Status: IL26-126 ensures only U.S. citizens vote, safeguarding the value of citizenship for legal immigrants who worked hard to earn it, especially in Washington’s diverse communities. Non-citizen voting, intentional or accidental, is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 611, punishable by up to one year in prison and deportation. This initiative prevents such risks, protecting legal immigrants from legal jeopardy.

• Enhances Election Security: By requiring proof of citizenship for new registrations and auditing existing rolls, IL26-126 closes loopholes. Morgan’s 717,000 unverified registrations prove the system’s vulnerability, and this aligns with federal law and a 2025 executive order on citizenship verification.

• Restores Public Trust: Over 30% of Americans doubt election results post-2020. With margins like 433,550 (2024), 545,177 (2020), and 343,000 (2022), unverified voters erode confidence. IL26-126 preserves vote-by-mail while ensuring integrity.

• Fair and Temporary: The 2027 audit sunsets in 2029, accepting common documents (passports, birth certificates). Voters get multiple notices, and reinstatement is instant, making it practical for voters in Washington.

• No Cost Barrier: Documents are low-cost ($20 to $30, often reimbursable), and no new fees are imposed.

• Broad Support: Polls show bipartisan backing for voter ID, and states like Georgia saw turnout rise after implementation.

Cons (and Why They’re Wrong):
Democrats, including county parties, claim IL26-126 is voter suppression. Let’s dismantle their messaging.

• Con: Disenfranchises Marginalized Groups. Democrats, like OneAmerica and county leaders, say it burdens low-income, immigrant, elderly, or rural voters, potentially canceling registrations and deterring participation.
  
  Rebuttal: This is fearmongering. The initiative accepts multiple documents most citizens, including legal immigrants, have. Birth certificates are affordable, and notices give months to comply. Reinstatement is immediate. Democrats ignore that it protects legal immigrants by preventing accidental felony voting, which could lead to deportation. Georgia’s ID laws boosted turnout, proving access isn’t harmed. If Democrats cared about immigrants, or election integrity they’d support safeguards, not a system risking legal trouble.

• Con: Unnecessary Due to Rare Fraud. They cite Brennan Center’s 0.0001% fraud rate, claiming signature verification suffices.
  Rebuttal: Morgan’s 717,000 unverified registrations aren’t “rare.” They’re a systemic flaw dwarfing election margins. Non-citizen voting is a felony, and even accidental cases (from registration errors) threaten integrity. Democrats’ dismissal ignores other states’ purges of thousands of ineligible voters.

• Con: Anti-Democratic Suppression. County Democrats call it a barrier targeting minorities and immigrants, sowing fear.
  Rebuttal: This is a distraction. IL26-126 applies equally, preserves vote-by-mail, and uses documents legal immigrants often have (e.g., naturalization papers). OneAmerica’s ballot title challenge was a delay tactic, and media like the Washington State Standard spread myths about ending mail voting. Thirty-six states have ID laws without disenfranchisement. Democrats’ “suppression” narrative protects a lax system, not voters.

The pros deliver security and fairness, while Democrat cons rely on exaggerations refuted by evidence. Their messaging ignores Washington’s need for trust in elections.

Why IL26-126 Is Worth It

IL26-126, filed May 20, 2025, requires new voters to show proof of citizenship: passports, birth certificates, naturalization papers, or enhanced driver’s licenses. The 2027 audit checks existing registrations against Department of Licensing records. No match? Two notices, then cancellation if ignored, but instant reinstatement. It sunsets in 2029. This protects citizenship, ensures fair elections, and rebuilds trust.

How to Support IL26-126

This initiative needs us. Collect 324,516 signatures by January 2, 2026. Volunteers are at Washington fairs and markets. Download at wagop.org/initiative-il26-126-facts or contact your local county GOP for a copy.

Closing Thoughts

Washington’s elections should reflect citizens’ will, not unverified risks. IL26-126 protects legal immigrants’ citizenship status and ensures fair elections, countering Democrat fearmongering with facts. Let’s secure our future. Go out and sign the initiative and comment below!

Our mission is simple: protect the full spectrum of personal rights, property, autonomy, and intellectual freedom, for every individual while ensuring no one's worldview is forced on others through government policy. Whether you're a rancher in Okanogan, a coder in Bellevue, or a parent in Tacoma, your freedom to live by your values is sacred. We're done with Olympia's one-size-fits-all mandates. We're here to reclaim Washington for ALL Washingtonians, and we're doing it from the ground up with hustle, grit, and a platform that puts people first.

The Reclaim Washington Platform: Our Battle Plan

We laid out the challenge: stop whining, start working. Knock on 10,000 doors. Raise $50,000 in your county. Train with Center for Self Governance or the Leadership Institute to become political warriors. Now, let's give you the blueprint to make it happen. The Reclaim Washington platform isn't about reacting to Bob Ferguson's regulatory overreach; it's about building a better Washington, plank by plank, rooted in local control and individual liberty. Here's how we fight.

Plank 1: Reclaim Parenthood and Childhood

Our kids aren't pawns of the state. They belong to families, and families belong to communities, not bureaucrats. We'll codify parental authority over education, healthcare, and moral upbringing. No more state-imposed ideologies like gender nonsense in schools or unsafe policies that harm our kids. We'll push for curriculum transparency, tax relief for parents, and protections from conception to age 18.

Why it matters: A state that sidelines parents steals childhood. We won't co-parent with Olympia.

Plank 2: Reclaim Safety and Security

Safety is the foundation of liberty. Every Washingtonian deserves to walk their streets without fear. We'll repeal soft-on-crime policies, fund county sheriffs and local law enforcement, and tackle the drug and mental health crises with real solutions, not excuses. We'll protect your right to self-defense and ensure the law shields the innocent, not the lawless.

Why it matters: Without order, there's no opportunity. Safety isn't a privilege; it's a promise.

Plank 3: Reclaim Economy and Energy

Washington thrives when we unleash its potential. We'll slash red tape, end ESG mandates that punish farmers and small businesses, and restore energy independence with hydro, nuclear, and natural gas. From trades apprenticeships to rural economic development, we'll make every county a place where workers and families prosper.

Why it matters: We need a liberated economy, not a managed one that only serves Seattle.

Plank 4: Reclaim Affordable and Accessible Healthcare

Healthcare should be affordable, accessible, and free from bureaucratic control. We'll audit Medicaid for waste, repeal costly mandates, and promote private and faith-based alternatives. From rural telehealth to protecting doctor-patient relationships, we'll put patients, not politicians, first.

Why it matters: Freedom in healthcare means choice and affordability for all.

Plank 5: Reclaim Government Transparency and Fiscal Responsibility

Taxpayers deserve to know how every dollar is spent. We'll demand real-time budget dashboards, ban backroom bills, and enforce balanced budgets. No more taxpayer-funded lobbying or bloated agencies. We'll clean house and put the people back in charge.

Why it matters: If we track our groceries to the penny, the government should too.

Plank 6: Reclaim Local Control and Self-Governance

Power belongs to the people, not distant bureaucrats or global agendas. We'll protect local autonomy in education, zoning, and energy. We'll ban outside money from influencing our elections and create citizen-led oversight panels. From secure voter registration to rejecting international mandates, we'll keep Washington free.

Why it matters: The further government gets from the people, the less it serves them.

Why This Fight Works

This platform bridges rural and urban, conservative and moderate, faith-based and secular. It's rooted in values, stewardship, family, order, truth, liberty, without alienating anyone. It doesn't just call out Ferguson's top-down failures; it builds a better Washington with strength and dignity. We're not waiting for the state party to fund us or the RNC to notice us. We're hustling, door by door, dollar by dollar, to flip school boards, city councils, county commissions, and eventually the statehouse and senate. We need to Reclaim Washington!

The Call to Arms: Get to WORK!

Washingtonians, this is our fight. No saviors are coming. Stop expecting party handouts and start doing the work. Join your local GOP. Volunteer for campaigns. Run for office. Train with Center for Self Governance or the Leadership Institute. Knock on 10,000 doors. Raise $50,000 for your county. Build alliances with parents, business owners, and neighbors. In the trenches, inch by inch, day by day, we'll reclaim Washington for ALL. Let's get to work!

Share this if you're ready to fight. Join the Reclaim Washington Coalition in the comments and let's keep the revolution rolling!

Think about it. For years, we've been playing the blame game like pros. "The RNC doesn't care about us!" "The state party won't send money!" "They're ignoring the West Coast!" Sure, there's truth there. Washington isn't exactly a swing state darling. But here's the kicker: for some reason, Republicans rail against government handouts but turn around and beg for handouts from their own party. What gives? You don't win elections by sitting around waiting for a golden ticket from the RNC. You win by doing. It's time to get to WORK!

Step One: Become Political Experts. No More Amateurs

Let's get real. How many of us can honestly say we're experts in the game? I'm talking about understanding precinct strategies, voter data analytics, and the nitty-gritty of ballot measures or ballot harvesting. Too many Republicans show up to meetings, complain about the libs, and go home feeling righteous. That's not enough! We need to train like our freedom depends on it, because it does.

Start local. Flip those school boards first. Remember what happened in places like Loudoun County or even here in Washington with parents rising up against CRT and gender ideology? That's the blueprint. Get involved in PTA meetings, run candidates who actually show up and fight. Learn how to mobilize parents who are sick of their kids being guinea pigs for radical experiments. Same goes for city councils. Those are the breeding grounds for future state reps. Control the councils, and you control zoning, taxes, and public safety. No more defund-the-police nonsense on our watch.

But here's where the hustle comes in: You can't win if you don't grind. How many local Republican parties can say they've knocked on 10,000 doors in a cycle? Be honest. Most can't even hit 1,000. Door-knocking isn't glamorous; it's blisters, rejection, and rain-soaked clipboards. But it's how you build relationships, identify voters, and turn out the base. And fundraising? How many county parties are raising $50,000 to support candidates and ops? If your answer is "I don't know," that's the problem! We need to hustle like entrepreneurs. Host events, build donor lists, leverage social media. Stop waiting for party handouts; start creating your own war chest.

The Trench Warfare Mindset: Inch by Inch, Day by Day

This isn't some feel-good rally speech. Fixing Washington is trench warfare. It's foxholes in King County, grinding out wins in Spokane, and inching forward in Tacoma. Democrats didn't dominate this state overnight; they built it block by block, election by election. We have to match that grit. No, surpass it. You don't win by sitting; you win by doing. No one's handing us victory on a silver platter, so let's stop acting like entitled bureaucrats waiting for a bailout.

Imagine this: A local precinct chair who trains volunteers on canvassing apps. A school board candidate who raises $10,000 from small donors and flips a seat. A city council race where Republicans out-hustle the opposition with targeted mailers and phone banks. That's how we build momentum. Win locally, and those victories snowball. School boards lead to county commissions, which lead to statehouse seats. Before you know it, we're challenging the blue machine statewide.

But it all crumbles if we keep expecting saviors from above. The RNC has bigger fish to fry. Battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Georgia. The state party? They're stretched thin. So what? We don't need permission to win. Get trained through organizations like the Leadership Institute, Centers for Self Governance, or local GOP workshops. Form alliances with like-minded groups. Parents' rights orgs, Second Amendment defenders, small business owners fed up with regulations. Hustle, hustle, hustle!

The Call to Arms: Your Move, Washington Republicans

Listen up: If you're reading this and nodding along, it's time to act. Join your local party today. Volunteer for a campaign. Learn how to run for office. Yes, you. No more excuses. No more blame. We're not victims; we're fighters. Reclaim Washington from the ground up, because if we don't, who will? It's time to get to work.

In the trenches, inch by inch, day by day. That's how we win. Let's roll up our sleeves and fight. Our state depends on it.

What are you waiting for? Share this if you're fired up, and let's start the revolution in the comments below.

America’s partisan political system, shaped by more than a century of rivalry between Republicans and Democrats, once provided stability and clarity. Today, however, it is struggling to adapt. The world has grown faster, more complex, and more interconnected. Technology, culture, and global competitors move quickly, and the relentless back-and-forth of party politics is not enough to meet the demands of the 21st century. As a conservative and county party chairman, I see the limits of this structure every day. We do not need more division or loyalty to party over country. We need bold leadership, long-term vision, and a willingness to break out of old habits.

Within the Republican Party, these challenges are even more apparent. Frequent turnover among county, district, and state leaders leads to instability and wasted opportunity. Leaders step in, spend valuable time learning the ropes, and often move on before their work gains traction. The upcoming 2028 election will only intensify this instability as the GOP navigates a changing coalition in the post-Trump era. The Republican Party has a chance to seize this moment, but only if it addresses its internal weaknesses and adapts to a new political landscape.

The Limits of Partisan Politics

The idea that two parties can represent the entire spectrum of American life is increasingly unrealistic. Our most pressing issues, such as Big Tech censorship, border security, and the erosion of traditional values, do not fit neatly on a left-right axis. Millions of Americans hold a mix of views that defy simple categorization. Younger voters in particular are tired of choosing between two teams. They care more about solutions than slogans, and the old model of party identity is losing its appeal.

Modern media only amplifies this problem. Social media and cable news reward outrage rather than problem-solving. As a result, public debate devolves into performance, and the loudest voices drown out those seeking real answers. When loyalty to party becomes more important than loyalty to principle, independent thinkers and reformers are sidelined. Our politics become more tribal, less constructive, and less capable of meeting new challenges.

Organizational Turmoil in the GOP

These broader trends are magnified within the GOP. Every two years, a new cast of county, district, and state leaders takes charge. While this cycle brings in fresh energy, it also creates confusion and undermines continuity. New leaders are often passionate but inexperienced, needing time to learn everything from volunteer management to campaign finance. By the time they become effective, their term ends. Volunteers and activists get discouraged, and momentum is lost. In places like Yakima, I have watched promising efforts unravel simply because relationships were not given time to develop. The result is a party that is constantly starting over rather than building on its strengths.

A New Political Moment

Partisan gridlock and internal turnover leave the GOP unprepared for the challenges ahead. Today’s geopolitical and economic threats require strategy, consistency, and the ability to think beyond the next election. Our competitors, especially China, operate with long-term discipline. We cannot afford to continue operating in two-year cycles that encourage short-term thinking and constant reinvention.

At the same time, nearly a third of American voters now call themselves independents. They want results, not rhetoric. Conservatives have a real chance to connect with these voters if we offer substance and clear vision. This is especially urgent as the party adapts to life after Donald Trump, whose unique coalition brought in many who felt alienated by the old guard. To keep this coalition intact and expand it, the GOP must embrace structural change.

Five Essential Reforms for the GOP

To ensure the GOP thrives in the post-Trump era, we need a strategy rooted in stability, innovation, and outreach. These five reforms would give the party the foundation it needs to meet the moment.

1. Extend Leadership Terms

The party cannot continue to reinvent itself every two years. Moving to four-year terms for county, district, and state leaders would provide the time needed for relationships to mature, initiatives to bear fruit, and leaders to learn from experience. A two-term limit would keep leadership fresh and ensure continued accountability. This change alone would dramatically reduce chaos and encourage more thoughtful planning.

2. Create a Conservative Vision Council

Strategic direction cannot be left to chance or changed every election. A permanent Vision Council, composed of grassroots activists, business leaders, pastors, and young conservatives, would set a long-term agenda for the party. Unlike the RNC, which is driven by election cycles, this council would focus on big-picture priorities and publish an annual report holding the party accountable to its principles and progress. Staggered, non-renewable five-year terms would ensure a blend of continuity and new voices.

3. Build a Secure Digital Infrastructure

Success in modern politics requires cutting-edge digital tools. The GOP needs its own secure platform to organize supporters, protect against Big Tech censorship, and collect grassroots input. This digital hub would allow for policy crowdsourcing, online mentorship, virtual town halls, and direct communication with activists. Strong data security is essential, especially as artificial intelligence becomes part of campaign strategy. By investing in technology, the GOP can mobilize supporters, attract younger voters, and stay ahead of adversaries.

4. Launch Targeted Community Engagement Initiatives

Expanding and sustaining the Republican coalition requires a hands-on, local approach that goes far beyond generic messaging. The GOP should establish local Community Advisory Teams in urban, suburban, and rural areas. These teams should reflect the full diversity of their communities, bringing together Hispanic, Black, Asian American, Native American, and rural voices, as well as veterans, small business owners, and young professionals.

Each team would focus on regular listening tours and issue-specific town halls in partnership with trusted local organizations like business associations, faith communities, parent groups, and neighborhood councils. The objective is to identify the actual needs and aspirations of each community and turn that feedback into policy and action.

Concrete programs should include:

• Small Business Roundtables: Regular forums where local entrepreneurs can share barriers and brainstorm solutions with party leaders and policymakers. Ideas generated would be carried directly into the party’s policy platform and advocacy work.

• Education Choice Partnerships: Build relationships with parents and educators to support charter schools, vocational training, and STEM opportunities, responding to local education challenges.

• Law and Order Task Forces: Collaborate with local law enforcement, clergy, and community activists to address crime, addiction, and public safety with tailored strategies.

• Faith and Family Forums: Organize ongoing discussions with churches, synagogues, mosques, and family organizations on topics like religious liberty, foster care, and family support programs.

This approach is not about token outreach or photo opportunities. It means a visible, year-round GOP presence, offering resources, responding to concerns, and involving new people in party decision-making. Progress would be measured by deeper relationships, higher participation rates, and policy changes that actually address community priorities, not just campaign wins.

5. Prioritize Training and Leadership Development

Long-term success depends on skilled, prepared people at every level of the party. The GOP in every state should build a Republican Leadership Pipeline, providing ongoing workshops, mentorship, and practical training in campaign management, fundraising, digital communications, and policy engagement, and civics. These programs would be available year-round, open to precinct officers, activists, and volunteers at every stage of their involvement.

Investing in talent development prevents the pitfalls of trial-and-error leadership and ensures every new chair, board member, and activist can step in ready to serve. Over time, this approach will create a deep bench of experienced leaders and volunteers who can sustain and grow the party regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.

Avoiding Internal Collapse

As the party transitions beyond Trump’s leadership, the risk of infighting is real. Populists, traditional conservatives, and establishment Republicans will not always agree. Rather than seeing this diversity as a weakness, the GOP should treat it as a source of strength if it is managed constructively. The reforms above will help create a culture of accountability, collaboration, and forward thinking. Stability in leadership, clear long-term goals, modern tools, and a focus on developing people can bridge divides and keep the party focused on its mission.

It is equally important to avoid the pitfalls of the left, such as identity politics, cancel culture, and top-down control. The GOP’s strength has always been its commitment to liberty, opportunity, and civic responsibility. By focusing on shared values and common purpose, the party can unite diverse communities without sacrificing its principles.

Conclusion

The old partisan playbook is running out of steam. The challenges facing America and the Republican Party demand new thinking, stable leadership, and a willingness to embrace change. By extending leadership terms, creating a Vision Council, modernizing our digital infrastructure, launching real community engagement, and investing in training, the GOP can build a lasting foundation for success.

These reforms are not just about fixing internal problems. They are about preparing the party to lead America through an era of uncertainty and opportunity. The post-Trump GOP can become a force for liberty, prosperity, and national pride if we have the courage to adapt, the humility to listen, and the discipline to execute a real strategy for the future. I am just one voice here, what are your thoughts?

America is teetering on the edge of a precipice, caught in a whirlwind of chaos that feels both orchestrated and organic, deliberate yet uncontrollable. This week, the nation has been battered by a storm of events that threaten to unravel the very fabric of our society. From "peaceful" protests in blue cities that leave destruction in their wake to a government system seemingly at war with itself, we are witnessing a nation at a crossroads, a modern Rubicon moment. Where we go from here will define not just the next few years but potentially the next century of American history. This is not hyperbole; it is a call to action, a plea for clarity, and a challenge to every American to reclaim the principles that built this nation before it is too late. Or, as some fear, perhaps it already is.

The Chaos in Our Cities

In cities across the country, predominantly those painted blue on the electoral map, protests billed as "peaceful" have erupted into scenes of devastation. Storefronts shattered, streets littered with debris, and communities left reeling in the aftermath. These events are often framed as expressions of free speech, yet the line between protest and destruction has blurred to the point of invisibility. Reports from urban centers like Seattle, Portland, and Spokane describe looting, vandalism, and violence that seem less about ideology and more about opportunism cloaked in righteous rhetoric.

The media's portrayal of these events is maddeningly inconsistent. Some outlets call it "mostly peaceful," while others highlight the economic and emotional toll on local businesses and residents. Social media platforms, particularly X, amplify the chaos, with videos of burning cars and clashing crowds going viral. Yet, amidst the noise, a critical question emerges: who benefits from this destruction? The answer is murky, but the division it sows is undeniable. Communities are pitted against one another, and trust in local governance erodes as mayors and governors struggle to balance free expression with public safety.

This is not just about protests; it is about a deeper fracture. Americans are angry, angry at systems they feel have failed them, at leaders who seem out of touch, at neighbors who do not share their values. But anger without direction is a wildfire, and right now, our cities are burning.

A Government at War with Itself

Simultaneously, the federal government is locked in an unprecedented internal struggle. The executive branch, tasked with leading the nation, faces undermining forces from within and without. Bureaucratic resistance, leaks, and open defiance from career officials have reached levels unseen in modern history. This is not just politics as usual; it is a systemic rebellion that threatens the very structure of governance.

The checks and balances that define our system are being stress-tested to their breaking point. Congress, the courts, and unelected officials wield power in ways that often feel like a direct challenge to the will of the electorate. Whether it is through selective enforcement of laws, judicial overreach, or administrative stonewalling, the executive branch is being squeezed into a corner. This is not about one administration or one party, it is about a deeper question of who actually governs America.

The media does not help. Pundits on every channel spin narratives that obscure more than they illuminate, preaching dogma that divides rather than unites. The airwaves are saturated with talking heads telling us what to think, who to blame, and why the other side is the enemy. It is a cacophony of noise that drowns out reason and makes it nearly impossible to discern truth from propaganda. The result? A populace so polarized it can barely agree on basic facts, let alone solutions.

Who Is the Real Enemy?

Do we even know a face to our enemy? Democrats point to Republicans, Republicans point to Democrats, each side convinced the other is the root of all evil. But what if I told you the true threat is not so neatly partisan? It is not the Social Progressive Republicans or the Socialist Progressive Democrats. It is the Political Progressives, a force that transcends party lines and outside the partisan structure, pushing agendas that prioritize power and control over the will of the people. This is not about left or right; it is about a mindset that erodes the principles of self-governance. I will leave you to ponder those words. I will have another post explaining this more soon.

Democracy, Republic, or Something Else?

At the heart of this chaos lies a fundamental misunderstanding: most Americans do not know what kind of system they live in. Is it a democracy? A republic? Something else entirely? The answer matters, because without clarity on this point, we cannot begin to fix what is broken.

To set the record straight: America is a constitutional republic. This means we are governed by a framework of laws, not the whims of the majority. Our system is designed to protect individual rights while balancing the will of the people through representative institutions. It is not a pure democracy, where 51% can dictate to the 49%. It is a republic, where the rule of law, enshrined in the Constitution, acts as a guardrail against tyranny, whether from a mob, a monarch, or a bureaucracy.

But this system only works if citizens understand it. Too many Americans operate under the false belief that democracy means "majority rules, always." This misconception fuels division, as groups clamor for power without grasping the mechanisms that keep it in check. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, these institutions exist to prevent the tyranny of the majority, yet they are vilified by those who do not understand their purpose. Education in civics has been replaced by soundbites, and the result is a nation that does not know its own foundation.

The Rubicon Moment

We are at a crossroads, a Rubicon moment where the choices we make will determine whether we preserve the republic or descend into something unrecognizable. The stakes could not be higher. Domestically, we teeter on the edge of civil conflict, not the organized armies of the 1860s, but a fractured, decentralized unrest that could prove just as destructive. Internationally, the world watches as tensions flare between Israel and Iran, Ukraine and Russia. The specter of World War III looms not as a distant hypothetical but as a plausible outcome of missteps and miscalculations.

The division is not just political; it is existential. Outside influences, whether foreign actors, corporate interests, or ideological crusaders, exploit our fractures, pouring fuel on the fire through misinformation, propaganda, and economic pressure. Social media amplifies these efforts, turning neighbor against neighbor in a digital coliseum where nuance goes to die. The question is whether we, as Americans, can rise above these manipulations and reclaim our shared identity.

A Challenge to Americans

This is a challenge to every American: do not let these outside forces divide us further. Learn the system. Understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Know why the Electoral College exists, why the Senate gives equal voice to small states, why the judiciary is not supposed to bend to public opinion. This is not arcane trivia; it is the blueprint for self-governance.

Fixing the system starts with understanding it. We need civic education that is not filtered through partisan lenses. We need leaders who prioritize unity over power, who speak to the nation as a whole rather than pandering to their base. We need citizens who can debate without demonizing, who can disagree without destroying.

But time is running out. The media tells us it is already too late, that civil war is inevitable, that global conflict is just around the corner. They thrive on fear, on clicks, on division. Do not let them dictate the narrative. The dogma preached over the airwaves is not truth; it is noise. Tune it out. Seek primary sources. Talk to your neighbors. Think for yourself.

Can Self-Governance Save Us?

The ultimate question is whether a nation without training in self-governance can survive. Self-governance is not just voting every four years; it is a daily commitment to understanding, engaging, and holding power accountable. It is about recognizing that the system, flawed as it is, is ours to steward. Without this, we risk becoming a nation of subjects rather than citizens, beholden to whoever shouts the loudest or wields the most influence.

There is hope, but it requires work. Grassroots movements are already forming, citizens organizing to teach civics, to rebuild community trust, to counter the narratives of division. Platforms like X, for all their flaws, give us unfiltered voices, raw, messy, but real. We can use these tools to educate, to connect, to rebuild. But it starts with each of us.

The Path Forward

The week of interesting chaos has exposed our vulnerabilities, but it is also a wake-up call. We cannot afford to be passive. Here is what we must do:

1. Educate Ourselves: Read the Constitution. Study the Federalist Papers. Understand why our system was designed the way it was.

2. Get Training: Enroll in Center for Self Governance (CSG) classes or similar programs to learn the practical skills of civic engagement. Practice self-governance in your daily life by staying informed and active.

3. Engage Locally: Attend town halls. Talk to your local officials. Build community resilience against external division.

4. Reject Dogma: Turn off the talking heads. Seek out primary sources, court rulings, legislation, unfiltered voices on platforms like X.

5. Demand Accountability: Hold leaders accountable, not just at the ballot box but through active civic engagement. Call out corruption, regardless of party.

6. Unite, Do Not Divide: Find common ground with those who disagree with you. We are stronger together than apart.

America has faced crossroads before, 1776, 1861, 1968. Each time, we have found a way forward, not because of our leaders but because of our people. This moment is no different. The Rubicon is before us. Will we cross it into chaos, or will we step back and rebuild? The choice is ours, but the clock is ticking.

In 2023, when I first became Chair of the Yakima GOP, I walked into a crowded meeting room at State Committee. All 39 county chairs from across Washington were there in person, each bringing a different story about what it means to be a Republican. Early in that meeting, we asked two basic questions: “What does a Republican do?” and “What is a Republican?” As we went around the room, every single chair offered a different answer. Some leaned into tradition, others spoke about pragmatism, and a few tried to blend the two. What stood out was not just the diversity of thought, but the realization that if we, as leaders, could not answer those foundational questions in a unified way, it was unreasonable to expect the public to know or trust us.

This is not just a theoretical problem. It affects everything from how we win elections and pass policy to how young people view the future of our party. That meeting made me realize we needed more than new talking points. We needed a structural solution to bridge the partisan divide inside the Republican Party.

The Real Genesis: Conversations with Mark Herr

The solution did not develop in isolation, nor was the idea for a two-caucus GOP something I invented on my own. I’m sure others have considered similar ideas before. In my case, it grew out of countless conversations with my friend Mark Herr, founder of the Center for Self Governance (CSG). Mark’s approach has always been about teaching everyday people how to truly engage with the machinery of government, not just the politics of the moment. He asks the tough questions that strip away slogans and force real reflection.

Mark would press me with the same challenge every time: “What does a Republican do, and what is a Republican?” If we could not give the same answer in Yakima, Spokane, or Seattle, what future were we offering to voters? Our discussions often lasted for hours. We examined how the GOP’s internal rifts at the local level seeped up into the state and national parties. Mark made it clear that if we did not clarify who we are, we would always be divided and directionless.

The more we talked, the clearer it became that telling everyone to “just unify” would not work. Our strength was in our differences, but we needed a system to organize and respect those differences. The idea for the two-caucus GOP emerged in these honest, sometimes difficult conversations. The goal was to provide a home for both wings of the party. By giving structure to our diversity, we could heal the rift instead of watching it deepen.

CSG Training: Navigating the System

Mark’s CSG training was a turning point in how I approached leadership and politics. CSG does not teach party politics. It teaches the deeper system, how local charters work, how laws move, and how government structure influences everything from budgets to policy. With this training, I learned to focus not just on partisan wins, but on how to influence and navigate the entire system.

This systematic understanding was vital. I saw that the Republican Party’s internal divides were often as much about process and systems as about ideology. The CSG training gave me practical tools for bridging divides within the GOP. It helped me move beyond daily drama and instead build lasting influence. What we needed was not more rhetoric, but a structural way to honor both the Conservative and Progressive sides of our party.

Democrats in Disarray: Our Moment to Lead

All of this is happening while the Democratic Party is struggling with its own civil war. The Democrats are divided between radicals demanding extreme social and economic change, and moderates clinging to pragmatic governance. Working-class families are being left behind. Inflation and crime are rising in blue states. Longtime Democrats are taking to X to express their frustration and disappointment. The left’s internal fights are public, and voters are noticing.

Donald Trump’s coalition brought together conservative Democrats, blue-collar families, and independents who were looking for a party with clarity and backbone. If we want to build a lasting majority, we need to offer a clear identity and a home for anyone whose values align with ours.

Why Two Caucuses? A Solution from Experience

The two-caucus model is about answering those questions Mark Herr kept asking me.

Clarity for Voters

One of the most common frustrations I hear from voters is that they feel like they are casting their ballots blindly. Too often, Republican candidates run on vague promises and generic branding, only to govern in ways that surprise or disappoint their supporters. With two caucuses, that confusion would end. Every Republican candidate, elected official, and precinct committee officer would be required to publicly declare which caucus they align with: Progressive Republican or Conservative Republican. This declaration would give voters a clear sense of the values, priorities, and legislative style they can expect.

During campaign season, this clarity would mean voters no longer need to guess where a candidate stands. There would be no need to rely on rumors or attack ads to figure out who is a true conservative or a pragmatic moderate. This transparency would also force candidates and officials to be honest about their convictions. No more hiding behind ambiguity or claiming to be “all things to all people.” Candidates would have to state who they are and what they believe before the first yard sign even goes up.

As this level of clarity becomes the norm, trust between the Republican Party and its base would be restored. Voters could be more confident in their choices, which would increase activism, volunteerism, and turnout. People would know their vote means something. The days of post-election disillusionment would be replaced by a culture of accountability and transparency that strengthens the entire party.

Action Over Rhetoric

Political parties are notorious for making bold promises during elections and then watering them down later. A two-caucus system would change that. Each caucus would be responsible for developing, publishing, and defending its own platform, with specific policy proposals and action plans. The Progressive Republican Caucus could focus on economic innovation, infrastructure, and pragmatic foreign policy. They would bring new ideas for education, workforce development, and policy for the future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Republican Caucus would prioritize traditional American values. They could champion issues like religious liberty, school choice, the sanctity of life, strong families, and fidelity to the Constitution. Both caucuses would have to not only articulate their priorities, but show real results.

Despite their differences, the caucuses would unite around Republican principles that have defined the party: limited government, lower taxes, secure borders, and the protection of freedom of speech and thought. By organizing around these core values, each caucus could offer voters a clear vision of both what unites us and what distinguishes each wing of the party. This would create a culture where action and results matter more than empty rhetoric.

A Home for Disaffected Democrats

The Democratic Party’s internal conflicts have left many of their traditional voters politically homeless. Working-class families, union members, small business owners, and faith-based voters are increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of the left. The Progressive Republican Caucus could offer pragmatic solutions and a moderate approach to governance. Instead of demanding immediate ideological conversion, it could extend an open hand to those who still hold some traditional Democrat values but are tired of the current radicalism.

At the same time, the Conservative Republican Caucus would provide stability for lifelong Republicans and movement conservatives. This dual approach would make the GOP a party where new members are genuinely welcomed, and long-time conservatives know their principles are safe.

By broadening the coalition in this way, the Republican Party could absorb disaffected Democrats without diluting its core values. Both caucuses would gain energy and perspective from each other, creating a party that is more adaptable and resilient. This approach would transform the Republican Party from a shrinking base into a growing movement.

Embracing Internal Debate

Consultants have long tried to manage internal differences by keeping them quiet or spinning them away. The result is resentment, distrust, and public party infighting at the worst moments. The two-caucus model would turn those differences into a source of strength.

By making debate open and organized, both caucuses would be empowered to make their case, challenge each other, and refine their ideas. Disagreement would be treated as a sign of a living, principled organization. Healthy internal competition would push each caucus to sharpen its message and improve its policies.

This spirit of debate would also attract principled leaders and thoughtful voters—people tired of echo chambers and craving genuine dialogue. By modeling civil discourse, the Republican Party could become a beacon for those who believe in both freedom and responsibility.

Broadening the Tent

The future of American politics depends on our ability to welcome new voices while staying true to our principles. Young voters and new Americans are skeptical of purity tests. They want solutions to real-world problems, not just party-line talking points. The two-caucus structure lets us do both. The Conservative Caucus can rally the base and stand firm on principle. The Progressive Caucus can experiment with new ideas, reach out to new constituencies, and address the issues that matter to people in changing communities.

Both caucuses can work together to make the Republican Party more relevant without falling into the trap of bland centrism. Instead of watering down our message, we can speak directly to more Americans, showing that the GOP is ready to lead in the twenty-first century. This approach creates a pathway for new leaders and new ideas, ensuring the party is not just reacting to the present but building for the future.

How to Build It

Define Platforms in Public

• Both caucuses would debate and write their platforms at conventions. Input would come from the grassroots, not just insiders.

Require Declarations

• Candidates running as Republicans would declare their caucus when they file for office. When they serve, they would be accountable to the principles of their caucus.

Unite on Core Issues

• Both caucuses would agree on a basic set of Republican fundamentals. There would still be space for robust and respectful debate on other issues.

Project Unity, Not Sameness

• Imagine a convention where both caucuses present their ideas, but unite for joint fundraising and a shared vision. The message would be clear: We are Republicans, principled and ready to lead, no matter which caucus we identify with.

Why This Model Works

The lack of clarity in today’s GOP is costing us trust and momentum. The two-caucus system, developed out of CSG principles and Mark’s straight shooting questions, would bring authenticity and transparency. Both wings could advocate for their beliefs, but always under a single Republican banner.

At the same time, Democrats are losing working families and alienating moderates with their own internal conflicts. We do not need to repeat their mistakes. We can build something stronger and more sustainable if we are willing to reform our own structure.

The 21st-Century GOP: A Party That Understands the System

Politics is not just about personalities or slogans. It is about systems and structure. My CSG training taught me that real power is found in understanding and influencing those systems. The two-caucus GOP puts this philosophy into action. We would be a party that honors differences, builds coalitions, and gives every Republican and every voter a clear answer to the questions that matter.

What is a Republican? Someone with a place and a voice in a principle-driven party.

What does a Republican do? We act, we solve problems, and we defend liberty, always together.

Call to Action

Are you ready for a Republican Party that faces its challenges honestly, empowers its people, and offers a real alternative to the chaos of the left? Should we take this moment to build a systematic, two-caucus GOP for the 21st century? Is this a utopia that is not achievable?

Let’s answer those hard questions together. Comment below your thoughts.

A peaceful Christian worship rally, organized under the hashtag #DONTMESSWITHOURKIDS, brought together parents, pastors, and families who wanted nothing more than to pray, sing, and stand up for their children. Their message was simple: Parents, not unelected bureaucrats or radical activists, should decide what’s best for their kids. Faith, family, and childhood innocence still matter.

In a city that claims to champion “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “justice,” you’d think there’d be space for parents and faith communities to gather in peace. Instead, they were violently attacked by Antifa and far-left agitators. Masked goons screamed in their faces, hurled objects, shoved, punched, and tried to drive these parents and kids out of a public park with brute force. The only thing standing between peaceful families and an angry mob was a line of SPD officers. These officers, let’s be honest, get zero gratitude from Seattle’s politicians for actually defending human rights.

So how did Mayor Bruce Harrell and the city respond? Did they offer moral clarity? Was there outrage at leftist violence? Did they defend the most basic American freedoms at all?

No. The mayor’s response is a masterclass in cowardice, gaslighting, and raw political intimidation.

Don’t take my word for it—watch what really happened: CLICK HERE

The Mayor’s Gaslighting: “Inclusion” as a Weapon

Mayor Harrell’s official statement reads like something straight out of a totalitarian playbook. He smothers the public in flowery language about “inclusion” and “diversity,” while wielding those very words to exclude, demonize, and criminalize anyone who disagrees.

Let’s break down the lie.

“Seattle is proud of our reputation as a welcoming, inclusive city for LGBTQ+ communities…”

Fine. But the city’s idea of “inclusion” stops cold the second parents, Christians, or anyone with a different worldview wants to use a public space. Suddenly, being “welcoming” means declaring entire classes of people (conservatives, Christians, parents, and anyone who does not bow to the city’s radical dogmas) as enemies of “our values.”

“Today’s far-right rally was held here for this very reason—to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values…”

Let’s decode that. If you don’t think like the ruling elite, you are “provoking” violence against yourself. If you want to worship, pray, or defend your children’s innocence in public, you’re not just unwelcome. You are the problem. And if a left-wing mob attacks you, the city blames you.

Who Are the Real Extremists?

The Mayor and his defenders want you to believe the real threat comes from a few moms and dads singing worship songs and holding signs that say “Don’t Mess With Our Kids.” They want you to think that praying for your family is “provocative” and “extreme.”

Here’s the truth. The only people initiating violence at Cal Anderson Park were Antifa and their fellow travelers. Masked, dressed in black, using intimidation and outright assault, these are the real extremists. They do not want dialogue. They want control. They do not protest, they terrorize. This is textbook political violence and in any sane city, it would be universally condemned.

But in Seattle, City Hall winks, nods, and looks the other way.

If you want to see what fascism looks like in the Pacific Northwest, look at a city government that blames the victims of political violence, calls parents “provocateurs,” and quietly enables the very mobs attacking citizens for their beliefs.

The Great Double Standard: Excusing Leftist Violence, Criminalizing Dissent

Imagine for a moment if the roles were reversed. Suppose a Pride parade or a left-wing protest had been attacked by a group of right-wing thugs. Would the mayor shrug? Would city officials suggest maybe the “provocateurs” shouldn’t have gathered in public? Not a chance.

There would be a media firestorm, wall-to-wall coverage, a dozen press conferences, and calls for federal intervention. Seattle’s entire political apparatus would move heaven and earth to hunt down the perpetrators and “address the root causes of hate.”

But when parents, pastors, and worshippers are attacked by Antifa, there is silence. Deflection. And a veiled threat that next time, the city will find a way to deny your permit.

This is not just hypocrisy. It is an abdication of basic moral responsibility. When leaders apply the law and their own standards differently based on who is being attacked and who is doing the attacking, they have surrendered any legitimate claim to authority.

Bureaucratic Tyranny: Permitting as Political Censorship

Let’s not miss what’s happening behind the mayor’s rhetoric. Harrell’s next move is to weaponize bureaucracy against his opponents. He’s ordered the Parks Department to “review all of the circumstances of this application to understand whether there were legal location alternatives or other adjustments that could have been pursued.”

Translation: Find an excuse to shut these people down next time. Can’t ban their ideas outright? Smother them in paperwork, permits, new “community impact” requirements, and endless reviews. This is soft authoritarianism using process as a bludgeon when open censorship would be too obvious.

Meanwhile, the same city turns a blind eye to any progressive protest, riot, or occupation, no matter how disruptive, destructive, or lawless. As long as you’re carrying the approved banners and chanting the right slogans, Seattle will move mountains to “support your voice.”

No Outrage, No Condemnation, No Leadership

Mayor Harrell makes a token mention that “anarchists infiltrated the counter-protestors group and inspired violence,” but notice the absence of outrage or even basic human sympathy for the parents, children, and worshippers who needed police protection just to exist in public. There’s no condemnation of Antifa, no promises of prosecution, and no empathy for the victims.

If this is what “leadership” looks like, then Seattle is lost. A government that cannot or will not defend the rights of its most peaceful citizens has lost any moral mandate to govern.

The Real Victims: Families, Faith, and the Future of the City

Let’s be clear. The biggest losers in all of this are not the politicians. They are the families who are now scared to gather, worship, or speak out throughout Washington State. They are the parents who worry what will happen if they dare to object to radical ideology in schools. They are the children who, instead of seeing adults resolve differences with words and ideas, witness mobs and city leaders send the message that violence wins.

Is this the Washington we want? Is this “progress”?

What’s happening in Seattle is a warning for every city in America. When government picks sides, when the mob is rewarded and the peaceful are punished, when political power is used to silence, threaten, and exclude, civil society collapses. The American experiment dies not with a bang but with a bureaucrat’s signature and a politician’s cowardly tweet.

Solution: The Human Dignity Proclamation—Real Inclusion, Real Unity

Here’s the part the mayor and his cronies don’t want you to hear. There is a way forward, a way to restore sanity, safety, and true inclusion to our communities. That answer is not found in more virtue signaling or performative “diversity” committees. The answer is simple: Affirm and protect the equal dignity of every single person.

Recently, a Pierce County resident, wrote a bold, unifying measure: the Human Dignity Proclamation. Unlike the city’s hollow rhetoric, this proclamation does not play favorites. It does not elevate one group at the expense of another. It declares, unequivocally, that every human being—regardless of race, faith, gender, belief, or background—has inherent dignity and value.

Let’s take a look at their language:

“The [LOCAL GOVERNMENT] recognizes the inherent dignity and equal value of every human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, disability, or background.”

“…lifting up one race, group, or category of people above others, without equal regard for the dignity of all, creates division and undermines the ideals of unity, equity, and justice for which our community strives…”

Imagine what Seattle could be if it adopted this as its guiding principle. Not just for a month, but for every city action, every permit, every public square. Imagine if “inclusion” actually meant what it claims: everyone matters, and no one is excluded for their faith, beliefs, or parenthood.

Call to Action: Demand Dignity, Demand Change

If you are sick of the cowardice, the double standards, the endless political gaslighting, here’s your moment. Demand that Seattle’s leaders stop picking winners and losers in the human rights game. Demand they adopt a Human Dignity Proclamation as city policy. Make your voice heard at council meetings, with your neighbors, and in every election.

• Share the Human Dignity Proclamation with your officials and demand adoption.

• Refuse to let mobs, bureaucrats, or politicians silence your voice or your values.

• Stand with your neighbors. True unity means everyone’s dignity is non-negotiable.

• Use #DONTMESSWITHOURKIDS and demand the city live up to its promises. Stop the double standards, stop the excuses, and defend EVERYONE’S rights.

Full Text: Human Dignity Proclamation

WASPLC SPC: City/County
Author: Steve McCoy
December 9, 2024
Proclamation: Promoting Human Dignity

WHEREAS, the [LOCAL GOVERNMENT] recognizes the inherent dignity and equal value of every human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, disability, or background; and

WHEREAS, our shared humanity and vibrancy of our county calls for mutual respect, compassion, and understanding among all people, promoting a society in which every individual feels seen, valued, and heard; and

WHEREAS, history has shown that lifting up one race, group, or category of people above others, without equal regard for the dignity of all, creates division and undermines the ideals of unity, equity, and justice for which our community strives; and

WHEREAS, [LOCAL GOVERNMENT] remains committed to building an inclusive and respectful society where diversity is honored, and where no group is elevated at the expense of another, but rather all are uplifted together in the spirit of human solidarity; and

WHEREAS, we believe that the pursuit of justice, equality, and human rights must begin with the affirmation that all lives carry equal worth, and that true progress lies in unity, not separation;

WHEREAS, human dignity includes all people, from all beliefs, backgrounds, identities, and persuasions, and acknowledging this diversity strengthens the fabric of our community; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED…

That [Month, Year] is hereby designated as Human Dignity Month in [LOCAL AREA], and all residents are encouraged to participate in events, initiatives, and educational programs that celebrate and promote the dignity of every person, irrespective of their beliefs, backgrounds, or persuasions; and

BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that this proclamation serves as a reminder of the importance of mutual respect, understanding, and collaboration in building a more inclusive and harmonious community for all.

Seattle does not need more excuses. It needs courage. It needs real unity. It needs leaders who will defend the dignity of all, no matter their politics, faith, or family. Anything less is a betrayal of everything this city claims to stand for.

The Local Roots of National Change

Conservatives often focus on national goals, new laws from Congress, a strong president, or court rulings to protect our rights. But lasting change starts locally. City councils, school boards, and county offices control the policies that touch every aspect of our lives, from property taxes to school curricula, from police funding to election processes. If we want a nation built on fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, and practical governance, we must first strengthen the foundation.

Cities and counties are the building blocks of America. Fix your city council, fix your county, and you’ve laid the groundwork for fixing the state. Fix the state, and the nation follows. Federal overreach and bureaucratic waste often stem from local decisions or the lack thereof. City councils that prioritize ideological projects over infrastructure? School boards that adopt divisive policies? These are local problems with national consequences. By running for office, you can address them directly.

Washington State offers a prime opportunity. Thousands of local seats: city councils, school boards, port commissions, and more are open this year. Conservatives have a chance to reshape communities by contesting these races. Too often, we let these positions fall to entrenched progressives or candidates who mask their agendas. The result? Policies that raise taxes, weaken public safety, and drift from the values most Americans share.

The “Non-Partisan” Deception

In Washington, county commissioner and county council seats are openly partisan, with candidates running under party labels. But city councils, school boards, and other local offices are labeled “non-partisan.” Don’t be fooled this is a tactic. By removing party affiliations from ballots, some candidates obscure their ideologies, hoping voters won’t notice their misalignment with community priorities. Many push policies defunding police, hiking taxes, or reshaping education that clash with the practical, common-sense views of most residents. The “non-partisan” label lets them dodge scrutiny, counting on voter apathy to stay in power.

This strategy succeeds when conservatives fail to act. We criticize national trends but hesitate to engage locally, allowing uncontested races to hand city councils and school boards to candidates who don’t reflect our priorities. In Washington, this has created a gap between voters and their local governments. Surveys show most Americans reject extreme policies, favoring balanced budgets, safe streets, and quality education. Yet these values lose out when conservatives don’t run in “non-partisan” races.

The fix is straightforward: run. If you’re a conservative in Washington, check your local election filings. Look for open city council, school board, or other “non-partisan” seats in your area. If no conservative is running or if you question the candidates’ alignment with conservative priorities—step up. The filing window for this year’s elections is May 5th through 9th. Don’t let another race go uncontested. Don’t let another candidate hide behind “non-partisanship.”

Why Local Office Matters

Why focus on roles like city council member or school board director? Because their decisions ripple outward. Local policies shape state legislatures, which influence Congress. Want safer communities? City councils set police budgets and public safety priorities. Want better schools? School boards decide curricula and funding. Want lower taxes? County commissioners or councils control budgets.

City councils are critical. They oversee zoning, infrastructure, and local taxes—decisions that define your community’s future. In many Washington cities, councils have pursued policies that inflate costs or prioritize niche agendas over practical needs like roads or housing. A conservative council member can advocate for fiscal discipline, sensible development, and policies that serve residents first.

School boards are equally vital. They determine what students learn, how schools are funded, and whether parents’ voices are heard. A single board member can influence whether education focuses on core skills or controversial ideologies. If conservatives don’t run, we risk ceding control to those who don’t share conservative priorities.

Other roles, like county auditors or special district commissioners, also matter. Auditors ensure election integrity by managing voter rolls and ballots. Port and fire commissioners handle essential services and infrastructure. Leaving these positions to unopposed candidates risks mismanagement and eroded trust.

The Time to Act is Now

Washington conservatives, this is your moment. The filing period for local elections starts tomorrow May 5th and runs through Friday May 9th. That’s less than a week to make a decision that could transform your community and the nation. Running for city council, school board, or other local offices isn’t just a duty; it’s a strategic move. Every seat we flip weakens the grip of misguided policies and strengthens the case for practical governance.

You don’t need political experience to run. Most local offices require only a commitment to serve and a clear vision for your community. You don’t need wealth either grassroots campaigns win with effort, clear messaging, and local support. Resources are available across Washington. The Washington State Republican Party, local conservative groups, and campaign networks offer training, volunteers, and fundraising help to get you across the finish line.

Still unsure? Think about the cost of inaction. Uncontested city council and school board races will empower candidates who raise your taxes, weaken your schools, and ignore your voice. The opposition relies on our hesitation. Don’t give them that advantage.

How to Get Started

Running is easier than you think. Start by checking your county’s election website for open seats. Focus on city councils, school boards, and special districts like fire or port commissions, where “non-partisan” races often lack conservative candidates. County commissioner and council seats, being partisan, are also key opportunities to rally Republican voters.

Next, assess the candidates. Are conservatives running? Do they share your priorities? If the field is weak or empty, that’s your signal to act. Contact local Republican or conservative organizations for support before running. Many of these groups know who is running and can tell you whether they have a conservative candidate already in the race for that seat. They can also provide mentors, campaign tools, and volunteer networks. Develop a clear message: why you’re running, what you stand for, and how you’ll serve. Emphasize issues that resonate lower taxes, safer streets, and better schools.

Finally, file your candidacy by May 9th, online or in person through your county elections office. Then hit the ground running. Knock on doors, attend local events, and use social media to connect with voters. Authenticity and solutions matter more than polished speeches. Call out the “non-partisan” myth in city council and school board races, highlight the stakes, and trust voters to choose wisely.

The Bigger Picture

Running for local office is about more than a single seat it’s about momentum. Every conservative who runs inspires others. Every race we contest forces opponents to defend their records instead of coasting. Every win, no matter how small, proves that practical, conservative priorities freedom, accountability, and community still resonate.

Washington’s thousands of open seats are a rare chance to change the game. They’re an opportunity to show that conservative ideas can win, starting at the local level. But opportunities require action. Courage, commitment, and a willingness to step up. This week, from May 5th to 9th, is your window.

Conservatives, your city and county need you. Run for office. Flip those seats. Fix your community, and together, we’ll rebuild the nation.

Spending Like Drunken Sailors

Democrats have treated Washingtons budget like a bottomless ATM, boosting spending by 40% in less than a decade. The 2025-27 operating budget reached $77.8 billion, up from $52.8 billion in 2017-19, a 7.8% annual growth rate nearly double the 5.2% revenue increase, per the Office of Financial Management. They poured billions into court-ordered K-12 education funding (post-2018 McCleary decision), free school meals (2023), healthcare for undocumented immigrants (2022), and the 2021 Climate Commitment Acts green projects. These were not just investments; they were blank checks for a progressive wish list.

Democrats relied on temporary windfalls, like $7 billion in federal COVID relief and a $3 billion 2022 surplus, to fund permanent programs. When these dried up, the state hit a fiscal wall. They locked in billions in ongoing costs, from $4 billion more for schools to $300 million a year for the Working Families Tax Credit, without a long-term plan. The April 2025 deal adds $7.4 billion in new spending, a 9% increase, balanced with cuts and transfers, not reserves. This was not bad luck; it was Democrats betting on endless growth.

Cooking the Books with Shoddy Forecasts

Washingtons tax system, relying on sales, property, and business taxes without an income tax, is volatile. Democrats knew this but built budgets on unrealistic revenue projections. Their 7% capital gains tax (2022) brought in $786 million in 2023 but dropped to $433 million in 2024, a 45% fall tied to stock market dips. The Climate Commitment Acts carbon auctions generated $2.8 billion since 2023, but inconsistent yields failed to meet needs. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Councils November 2024 estimate pegged the shortfall at $2 billion for 2025-27, revised to roughly $12 billion over four years by 2025.

Why the misfire? Democratic-led OFM forecasts banked on endless post-COVID growth. A 2023 State Auditors Office audit revealed $1.2 billion in untracked spending, not an error but fiscal malpractice. Democrats masked gaps with one-time funds, then feigned surprise when the economy cooled, tech layoffs hit (Amazon cut 10,000 jobs in 2023), and tax revenue tanked. They cooked the books, leaving voters with the bill.

Inflation: Democrats Gift to Washington

Do not let Democrats dodge this: they fueled the inflation crushing Washingtonians. Nationally, inflation peaked at 9.1% in 2022, but Seattles Consumer Price Index rose 2.5% over the 12 months ending February 2025, adding cost pressures. Democrats 2021-23 budgets pumped billions into the economy, echoing federal spending that overheated markets. State employee raises (4-8% annually since 2021) and union deals added billions to pensions and contracts. The Climate Commitment Acts carbon fees pushed gas prices to $5.12 a gallon in 2023 (down to $4.03 by October 2024), hitting commuters and businesses hard.

Democrats drove Seattles minimum wage to $20.76/hour in 2025 (statewide $16.66/hour), forcing small businesses to hike prices or cut jobs. The result? Grocery bills up 25% since 2020, rent in Seattle averaging $2,084 a month, and home prices at $887,994, 50% above the national median. These are Democratic fingerprints on a cost-of-living crisis. While they cite global factors, their spending sprees and regulatory chokeholds made Washington one of the priciest states to live in.

A Tax System Strangled by Democratic Choices

Washingtons lack of an income tax, cemented by voters rejecting Initiative 1098 in 2010, forces reliance on volatile sales and business taxes. Democrats could have pursued tax reform but opted for Band-Aid taxes that backfired. The capital gains tax fizzled in 2024s market slump. The Climate Commitment Acts auctions raised gas prices, sparking voter fury (Initiative 2117 to repeal it lost narrowly in 2024). These half-baked taxes did not fix the deficit; they worsened it.

Democrats initial $12 billion tax proposals for 2025, including a wealth tax and lifting the 1% property tax cap, collapsed after Gov. Ferguson and voters pushed back. The final deal, passing April 27, 2025, raises $4.3 billion through taxes on businesses and services, starting fall 2025, with $4.4 billion more projected for 2027-29. These taxes, less severe than feared, still hit your wallet, doubling down on policies that caused this mess.

The Cost-of-Living Catastrophe

Democrats utopia comes at a brutal cost. Beyond inflation, their policies have made Washington unlivable for many. The states population grew 21% from 2010 to 2025, but Democratic zoning laws and environmental rules choked housing supply, driving Seattle home prices to $887,994. The 2024 transportation budget, with $1 billion in unfunded spending, led to a 6-cent gas tax hike (55.4 cents per gallon by July 2025), among the nations highest. Small businesses, hammered by B&O taxes and wage mandates, are closing or fleeing, see Seattles empty storefronts.

Residents feel the squeeze. A family of four needs about $120,000 a year to live comfortably in Seattle, 50% above the national average, though costs vary by lifestyle. Posts on X capture the anger: Democrats tax us to death while rent and gas eat our paychecks. Yet Democrats keep pushing, with new sales taxes on services and self-storage units set for 2025. They bank on voters not noticing.

Hiding from Accountability

Democrats dodge blame, citing federal aid cuts or global inflation. But the multibillion-dollar shortfall is their creation. They ignored Republican warnings, like the $ave Washington plan to balance the budget without taxes, and steamrolled ahead with spending. Gov. Ferguson, in April 2025, rejected the wealth tax as legally risky, but he is a Democrat who rode their machine. The retreat on the wealth tax and property tax cap was not principle, it was fear of voter backlash at an April 15, 2025, Capitol rally.

The evidence is damning: a 2023 audit flagged sloppy accounting, forecasts flopped, and taxes flunked. Companies like Amazon, Costco, and Microsoft warned in April 2025 that new taxes could drive jobs out, yet Democrats pressed on. Senate Minority Leader John Braun slammed the budgets secretive crafting, calling it a shame on the Legislature. Democrats are not fixing the mess; they are burying it under $4.3 billion in new taxes, hoping voters stay asleep.

Wake Up, Washington!

This is not just a budget crisis; it is a betrayal. Democrats spent Washington into a multibillion-dollar ditch, fueled inflation with reckless policies, and jacked up living costs to unbearable levels. Their $4.3 billion tax grab, finalized April 26, 2025, is a bid to save their sinking ship while picking your pocket. With $2.4 billion in reserves and 6.8% revenue growth projected for 2025-27, they could have cut spending or reformed taxes. Instead, they are taxing businesses, services, and commuters to fund a fantasy that is failing.

Voters, it is time to see the truth. Democrats are not your saviors; they are the architects of this disaster. Check the Washington State Standard or OFM for the numbers, then demand accountability. The April 27, 2025, session deadline is today, but your voice can still shape the future. Do not let them hide; hold them to the fire for every dollar squandered and every tax plotted. Your wallet, and Washingtons future, depend on it.

Why the drop? Parents are fed up with the poor results coming out of our education systems in Washington State. And when you look at the salaries these superintendents are pulling in often surpassing the governor, the president, and other high-ranking officials it’s clear the problem isn’t funding. It’s priorities.

We don’t need more money thrown at education. We need better opportunities for our kids, caps on administrative salaries, and a serious overhaul of the system.

📊 The Numbers Don’t Lie: Superintendent Salaries Are Out of Control

Here’s a snapshot of what superintendents in Washington State are earning, based on public records:

Top Salaries:

• Lake Washington 414: $477,678

• Renton 403: $466,481

• Auburn 408: $400,561

• Kent 415: $391,121

• Northshore 417: $401,103

• Mukilteo 006: $390,170

• Marysville 025: $409,820

• Bellevue 405: $369,900

• Shoreline 412: $360,927

• Issaquah 411: $367,823

• Edmonds 015: $356,630

• Yakima 007: $357,468

• Snohomish 201: $348,288

• Federal Way 210: $365,584

• Sumner 320: $355,858

• Bellingham 501: $357,355

• Seattle 001: $356,800

• Tacoma 010: $346,642

• Evergreen (Clark) 114: $336,740

• Everett 002: $339,309

• Central Kitsap 401: $278,670

• Puyallup 003: $322,007

• Spokane 081: $319,015

• Kennewick 017: $312,792

📌 Source: Washington State School District Superintendent Salaries, accessed via public records compiled from district financial disclosures and OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction) documentation. Cross-referenced with district payroll summaries and verified internal reports (2024).

These salaries are outrageous. The superintendent of Lake Washington School District is making nearly $478,000 a year—more than the Governor of Washington ($187,353), and even more than the President of the United States, who earns $400,000 annually. Even the lowest on this list, Central Kitsap at $278,670, is earning far more than most Washingtonians. And for what? Our schools are not delivering the results our kids deserve.

📉 Enrollment Is Down Because Parents Are Fed Up

As previously reported, Seattle Public Schools has lost over 4,000 students since 2019. But the issue isn’t limited to Seattle. Districts like Tacoma, Evergreen, and Yakima have also seen enrollment decline. Superintendents blame this on birth rates or COVID-related disruptions. But that’s only part of the story.

Parents are leaving because the results are appalling.

• Only 34% of Washington fourth-graders are proficient in reading.

• Just 29% are proficient in math (Source: 2023 Nation’s Report Card).

• Graduation rates hover at 83%, but many of these graduates are not prepared for college or the workforce.

A 2022 report by the Washington Roundtable found that only 31% of high school grads who enroll in college actually earn a degree within six years. That’s not success. That’s systemic failure.

Parents are voting with their feet moving to private schools, homeschooling, or leaving the state altogether. Why? Because they’re watching a system prioritize bureaucrats over students and ideology over eduction.

🧾 The Funding Excuse: A Tired Refrain

Superintendents and administrators claim the problem is underfunding. But Washington State is already spending an enormous share of its budget on K–12 education—over $30 billion in the 2023–25 biennium, which is roughly 50% of the state’s general fund (OSPI, 2023–2025 Budget Report).

That’s not an underfunded system. That’s mismanagement.

When individual superintendents are earning nearly half a million dollars a year, the “we need more money” argument doesn’t hold up. A 2022 study from the National Center for Education Statistics confirmed that Washington spends more per pupil on administration than the national average. Meanwhile, teachers are under pressure, classes are overcrowded, and kids lack basic support.

🏢 Bloated Administration: The Real Problem

It’s not just the salaries—it’s the layers upon layers of administrators.

Washington school districts are bloated with:

• Superintendents

• Deputy Superintendents

• Assistant Superintendents

• Directors

• Coordinators

Each of these roles often comes with six-figure salaries, benefits, and pensions—paid for by taxpayers.

According to a 2021 report by the Washington Policy Center, school districts now have more administrators per student than ever before, even as enrollment plummets.

And yet, the average teacher salary in Washington is only $80,000 to $90,000, depending on the district according to a report from OSPI in 2023-2024.

🧮 The Outcomes: Where’s the Return on Investment?

Let’s be clear—if these massive administrative salaries were delivering results, there might be a case for them. But the numbers don’t lie.

• Test scores are in the gutter.

• College completion rates are low.

• Students aren’t job-ready.

• Enrollment is down.

Superintendents blame everyone but themselves—poverty, parents, society—but rarely accept responsibility for their leadership. When you’re being paid more than the President of the United States, you don’t get to make excuses.

📊 Washington State Superintendent Pay vs. Performance

The data is clear: Superintendent salaries are skyrocketing while enrollment shrinks and performance stagnates.

🔧 A Call for Change: Caps, Cuts, and Better Standards

Here’s what needs to happen:

🛑 1. Cap Administrative Salaries

No superintendent should earn more than the Governor or the President. A $200,000 cap is more than fair—and still more than 99% of residents make.

✂️ 2. Reduce Administrative Bloat

Cut excessive positions. If a role doesn’t directly serve students, it should be reconsidered.

🧑‍🏫 3. Prioritize Teachers and Students

Use the savings to hire more teachers and get class sizes down to manageable levels. That’s how we improve student outcomes—by putting more educators in front of kids, not more bureaucrats behind desks.

📈 4. Raise the Bar

Reform the curriculum, focus on core skills, and tie funding to real performance metrics. Districts that fail to deliver should not be rewarded.

🗣️ 5. Empower Parents and Communities

Parents deserve transparency and influence. Local school boards should be responsive to their communities—not to the administrative echo chamber.

👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Parents: What Can You Do?

These bloated administrations don’t exist in a vacuum—they’re enabled by school boards. And those boards are elected.

It may be time for moms and dads to step up and run for your local school board.

You know what’s not working. You know what your kids need. You are the accountability.

📣 I have a follow-up article coming soon that will walk you through how to run for school board—and how to win.