Snohomish County voters face split party recommendations on five charter changes

Snohomish County voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to adopt five proposed amendments to the county charter. The proposals address government services, budget reserves, nonpartisan elections, financial transparency, and tax increases. The political parties have issued opposing recommendations on all five measures, creating a direct conflict for undecided voters.

The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County urges voters to reject all five proposals. The Snohomish County Democratic Party also recommends a vote of no on all five. The Snohomish County Republican Party recommends a vote of yes on all five. The League and the Democratic Party cite different reasons for their recommendations, but both oppose the package as written.

The proposals originated with the 15-member Charter Review Commission, which meets every 10 years to review the county’s governing document. The commission recommended these specific changes after a review period that concluded in mid-2026. The measures now appear on the ballot without modification by the County Council.

Proposition 1 requires the county to prioritize funding for state-mandated services before expanding discretionary programs. Proposition 2 requires separate reserve funds for revenue fluctuations and emergencies, with four council votes needed to spend from them. Proposition 3 removes party designations from ballots for county offices. Proposition 4 requires searchable online data for county contracts and expenditures. Proposition 5 raises the threshold for new councilmanic taxes from a simple majority of three to four of five council members, effective Jan. 1, 2027.

Debate over the process intensified after four commissioners issued a dissenting letter on May 27. Commissioners Demi Chatters, Jennifer Gregerson, Amanda Dodd, and Robin McGee argued that public participation was limited. They stated that efforts to contribute were met with procedural barriers. They noted that public hearings did not equate to meaningful consideration of the proposals.

Commission Chair Mark James defended the process. He stated that the commission held open meetings both online and in person. He said the rules mirrored those used by the County Council. James noted that the deadline for submitting amendments was April 8, 2026. The commission held three additional public hearings in May and considered about 25 proposals. Eleven of those submissions came from the public, according to James.

Brenda Mann Harrison, president of the local League of Women Voters, criticized the timing of the hearings. She said public comment was limited to three minutes per speaker before deliberations began. She argued there was no mechanism to respond to commissioners’ questions or correct the record. She stated that meetings held after initial votes could not meaningfully influence proposals that had already advanced.

The League’s recommendation letter described the process as flawed due to a lack of access and transparency. It cited concerns that Propositions 2 and 5 would give veto power to a minority of council members. The Democratic Party’s recommendation is based on different grounds than the League’s, though both sides agree on the final vote.

If voters approve an amendment, it generally takes effect 10 days after election results are certified. If an implementation ordinance is required, the County Council has 180 days after the effective date to enact it. Cassie Fannin, spokeswoman for the Snohomish County Council office, confirmed these timelines. She stated that the council’s role was administrative, not evaluative.

The County Council transmitted the proposed amendments to the county auditor for the ballot. Fannin said the council did not evaluate the merits or impacts of the changes before placing them on the ballot. The five measures will be decided by voters in the Nov. 3 election.