We've already written far too much on this year's most visible local races, for Seattle's mayor and city council. Not much has changed since the primary. For mayor, Charlie Chong remains deeply troubling on some issues; his opponent, Paul Schell, remains deeply troubling on all issues, promising a city run by and for the direct benefit of the managers of the global economy. Council incumbents Jan Drago and Richard McIver are essentially unopposed; their opponents, Bob Hegamin and Kerman Kermoade, deserve support on the general principle that no incumbents (let alone wretched ones like Jan "Downtown Uber Alles" Drago) should get a free ride based on their ability to accept thinly disguised bribes as campaign donations.

In the open seat council races, Peter Steinbreuck and Nick Licata present a remarkable opportunity to not just elect good people, but create a base for possible future grass roots power. Chong, for all his strengths on council, was too erratic and his power too rooted in his own personality to institutionalize his views. Steinbreuck and especially Licata are strong, principled, experienced, and in tandem are capable of not just stopping the worst abuses of a Schell/Drago axis, but implementing positive programs. Along with four full-time legislative assistants, they could end the cyclical, now we're here now we're gone nature of neighborhood advocates in electoral Seattle. Their opponents, Thomas Goldstein and Aaron Ostrom, are young, aggressive activists good on their respective issues (youth and transportation). However, both seem likely to be educated by colleagues, major donors, and ambition to become Part of the Problem on the other 95% of city business; Ostrom especially has--while loudly defending his activist credentials to activists--spent the campaign sucking up to establishment types (like friend Jan Drago) and avoiding stances that might run counter to the economic desires of his new buddies. On the issues where they're good, both are, with their new Influential Friends, likely to have post-election roles in the upper reaches of City Hall anyway. Electing Licata & Steinbreuck, on the other hand, would be a breakthrough in Seattle politics. In the other race, Richard Conlin remains a far better choice than Sherry Harris, and a possible ally to L & S on progressive issues.

This, however, leaves the rest of the very long ballot. Here we go. The usual caveats: the winner-take-all electoral system is deeply flawed and hopelessly corrupted by money. Voting can count on local issues; for example, an ETS! item last year outing an unknown nasty incumbent, judge Jo Anne Alumbaugh, helped cost her the election--she lost by less than 100 votes. Voting mattered to the hapless folks whose lives would have been ruined if, in the last 12 months, they'd been hauled before her. But voting is no substitute for sustained activism. And, as usual, distrust these opinions like you would any other single biased source; make up your own mind.

Seattle City Attorney: Unopposed incumbent Mark Sidran is evil--a term not used lightly. This past week e-mail has been circulating urging write-in votes for Anne C. Dederer, a Fremont Public Association attorney with a long record of helping the disenfranchised. Sounds like a great idea.

Seattle School Board Pos. 4: Incumbent Don Nielsen is awful; among many other things, he was the leading pusher (pun intended) of corporate advertising in the schools. Challenger L. David Lewis hasn't campaigned and is, well, flaky. Skip it.

S.S.B. Pos. 5: Incumbent Michael Preston is frequently aloof and is mired in political trouble after being fired as head of Central Area Youth Association. He is also the only African-American on the board, and its only consistent progressive vote. Janice Van Cleve, a transgendered woman, is running with a lot of Capitol Hill support. That's great, especially given that school boards are often homophobe magnets. What's not so great is Van Cleve's background--a Microsoft exec who brags of her former work in Army intelligence and in manufacturing police surveillance equipment--and her admiration of John Stanford's military approach to running the district. Gotta go with Michael Preston.

S.S.B. Pos. 7 Alec Stephens comes with great Rainbow Party credentials, but his opponent, Jan Kumasaka, is just as good on the issues and would replace the only Asian-American on the board. Pick 'em.

Port Of Seattle: The best Port Commissioner candidate in memory is enviro activist David Ortman, who has run on an unusually explicit critique of the Port's environmental and human rights record. As a bonus, he faces an ossified 24-year incumbent, Jack Block. The other incumbents also deserve the boot; challengers Jim Bartlemay and Dan Caldwell might actually help rein in some of the Port's mindless expansion and corporate largesse.

King County Executive: Adequate liberal incumbent Ron Sims is likely to win easily against Repugnocrat Suzette Cook. Looks like Ron's gained a lot of weight in his voters pamphlet photo. Zzzzzzz.

King County Sheriff: Career cop Dave Reichert faces career gun- toting psycho with badge Chuck Pillon. Skip it.

County Council Pos. 1: Maggi Fimia, who took a principled stand against the stadiums, faces Christian Coalition guy Tim Olsen. Fimia.

County Council Pos. 5: Decent incumbent Dwight Pelz, having survived a primary challenge, is unopposed. Skip it. Why support a farce?

Seattle Proposition #1: The Monorail Initiative is hated by the RTA and city elites, precisely because it wasn't the RTA's expensive consultants who dreamed it up. Don't be swayed. It's cheap, it makes sense, and it doesn't duplicate the existing RTA plan. Non-auto transit works just like highways: building more increases overall use. Compared to the cost of, say, tunneling under Capitol Hill, this is a bargain. Yes.

Prop. #2: Seattle's streets desperately need fixing after years of city neglect. Everyone knows it. Including city council; hence this cynical, pork-laden attempt to issue $90 million in bonds for new pet projects (bonds can't be issued for maintenance work). As but one example--this will sound familiar--nearly a quarter of this measure is earmarked for improved access for Port of Seattle's corporate clients. Seattle needs money for potholes. This ain't the package. No.

Port of Seattle Prop. #1: Changes the name to Port of King County, pisses off top Port brass. Yes.

County Charter Amendment #1: Could make it slightly easier to qualify referendums and initiatives in unincorporated parts of the county. Yes.

C.C.A. #2: Allows County to use public employees for more types of construction projects. Sure, guess so.

C.C.A. #3: Specifies procedure for naming interim County Exec, Sheriff, or Assessor if the incumbent vacates; namely, the incumbent names his/her replacement. How cushy. No.

C.C.A. #4: Changes county's Board of Ethics to become "independent"- -that is, instead of being appointed by the Exec, it's appointed by the Exec and the County Council. A minor improvement, though the board could still easily be a whitewash. Yes.

C.C.A. #5: Bans county from amending or repealing a voter-approved initiative or referendum for two years after passage. Yes.

C.C.A. #6: Lets people under age 21 hold public office. Yes.

County Prop. #1: Levy for Emergency Medical Services. No! The free market should decide who lives or dies! Duh. Yes.

State Initiative 673: Initially pushed by chiropractors, this would allow patients to keep health care providers even if they switch (or are switched) to insurance companies that don't cover that provider. In the last week several insurance and health provider companies have sent out mass mailers blistering I-673. I got one from Regence (formerly King County Medical Blue Shield), which also happened to have its Annual Disclosure Statement on the back. Regence and its subsidiaries report, for 1996, $860 million in assets; $472 million in liabilities; and $388 million in surplus and reserves. As a final arbiter of who gets what medical care, Regence is arguably responsible for more needless death in our state each year than any other single factor. If this cash-poisoned, gatekeeping, parasitic, blood-stained capitalist giant despises I-673, it must be fucking awesome. Yes.

I-676: Gun safety measure. Saves lives, enrages gun nuts. Yes.

I-677: Bans workplace discrimination by sexual orientation. Saves jobs, enrages bigots. Yes.

I-678: Gum control! Allows independent dental hygienists. Saves gums, enrages dentists. Yes.

I-685: Medical marijuana. A badly needed brick through the window of the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, in a misguided appeal to "tough on crime" votes, 685 also bashes inmates: it guts good time and parole eligibility. No, and let's do it right next year.

Referendum 47: Property tax relief for the rich. Major landowners-- like Boeing and Weyerhaueser, among the measure's backers--would get most of the benefit. Why is it, when lawmakers talk about "giving back to the people" part of any budget surplus (dubious to begin with, since those same lawmakers gutted needed social programs to get that surplus), noone ever mentions reducing the state's most regressive income source: our unusually high sales tax? Never mind; we know why it's never mentioned. No.

House Joint Resolution 4208: Allows school levies to be effective for up for four (rather than two) years. Yes.

H.J.R. 4209: Expands list of infrastructure services governments can make loans for to include stormwater and sewer service. Yes.

STOP! Place your pencils on the desk and await insurrections.

--Geov Parrish