Readers don’t hold back in their criticism of The Times editorial pages. We can agree to disagree. But there is one theme of the criticism that lands with a punch fueled by the truth.
Over the last couple of legislative sessions, The Times editorial board has been very critical of the Legislature’s spendthrift ways. Through irresponsible decision-making, the Democrat-controlled Legislature has established a habit of perpetual budget deficits, despite growth and a fairly stable economy. And these decisions attracted a “negative outlook” from two bond-rating agencies that could imperil the state’s AAA bond rating.
More than a handful of readers over the last two years wrote praising our critical editorials but then leveled the gut-punch indictment: “You endorsed all of them.”
Ouch. That is true. Not proud of it.
Recently retired Times publisher Frank Blethen often would say incumbents should have to hurdle a higher bar than challengers to receive a Times endorsement. Makes sense, but with the increasingly rare, qualified Republicans challenging incumbent Democrats, that has become harder to do.
So, The Times editorial board has been rethinking how we do endorsements, which include evaluation of candidates in three broad areas:
- Experience. What skillsets do they bring to their job, including civic resumes? If they are incumbents, how did they vote on key issues that led to this predicament?
- Independence. Do they have a record of standing up for things they care about, or do they obediently fall in line with their party and special interest supporters? Do they work across party lines for solutions? Do they care about the whole state?
- Transparency. Do they conduct their business in ways that are open to voters? Do they invoke legislative secrecy privilege to keep their emails and meetings with lobbyists away from public scrutiny?
We have started interviewing candidates for state Legislature with these filters in mind. Our endorsements will be more nuanced and, in some cases, we may not make an endorsement. The point is to ensure readers have this information in addition to their other homework in order to make their decisions about their representatives.
For background, here’s how we got to this disappointing place:
Just briefly, in 2024, legislative budget writers ignored the state’s own economists, who were predicting a slower revenue growth of 1%. Instead, they settled on an erroneous assumption of 4.5% growth — the maximum under the law. Then former Gov. Jay Inslee negotiated generous state employee contracts.
In 2025, they passed $9 billion in new taxes, while making deep cuts to services for our state’s most vulnerable children, including foster children. Earlier this year, the song and dance was the same. This year lawmakers enacted $4.5 billion in new taxes again.
And that wasn’t enough. The Legislature also rammed through a first-ever 9.9% income tax with the first million dollars of income exempted. If it survives a lawsuit over its constitutionality and an expected ballot challenge, that gravy train is expected to arrive in 2029, producing an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion a year. But even that isn’t going to be enough, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Washington Research Council.
The overspending habit results get worse. Lawmakers ignored advice from state Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti, a fellow Democrat, who urged them to keep the total reserves healthy, including the state’s rainy day fund and the ending fund balance. They did the opposite.
The result came shortly after the Legislature adjourned. Two of the major bond-rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, announced they were giving the state a “negative outlook” because of its fiscal practices. Washington state ranks last among states for its reserves. While they left the state’s top-level AAA bond rating in place, if lawmakers don’t change their ways, that could be imperiled.
Here’s what Moody’s said: “The persistent operating imbalances and projected narrowing of budgetary reserves amid still solid economic and revenue conditions underscore the depth of the state’s structural budget challenges and reduce its financial flexibility to absorb unexpected revenue or expenditure shocks.”
In other words, do better.
That was the direction from our reproachful readers about our endorsements. And, we will do better to provide readers with more information about how incumbents have conducted themselves in office and what they and challengers bring to the job, and about their independence and transparency.
We also will be endorsing in the five state Supreme Court races, interviews that TVW is recording and will share with the public.
Let us know what you think about this process, including any questions you have for us or for the candidates. It’s going to be a long, but informative summer.
And to our reproachful readers, thanks for the wake-up call.
