The Municipal League of King County released its non-partisan evaluations of 122 legislative, judicial and local candidates Monday.
This election year, there are no local Renton races, so the ratings are for the candidates for seats in the five legislative districts that include a part of Renton.
There also were state Supreme Court ratings and District Court ratings.
The top rating is outstanding, followed by very good, good, adequate, not qualified and insufficient information to rate.
Legislative District 5
State Rep. Pos. 1
Jay Rodne – Very Good
Gregory Hoover – Good
State Rep. Pos. 2
David Spring – Adequate
Dean Willard – Good
Glenn Anderson – Very Good
Legislative District 11
State Rep. Pos. 1
Sarah Sanoy-Wright -Insufficient Information to Rate
Zack Hudgins – Outstanding
State Rep. Pos. 2
Bob Hasegawa – Very Good
Jackie Moore – Not Qualified
John Potter – Not Qualified
Legislative District 37
State Rep. Pos. 2
Eric Pettigrew – Outstanding
John Stafford – Good
State Senator
Adam Kline – Outstanding
Tamra Smilanich – Good
Legislative District 41
State Rep. Pos. 1
Marcie Maxwell – Good
Peter Dunbar – Very Good
State Rep. Pos. 2
Stephen Strader – Not Qualified
Orion S. Webster – Not Qualified
Judy Clibborn – Outstanding
State Senator
Steve Litzow – Very Good
Randy Gordon – Outstanding
Legislative District 47
State Rep. Pos. 1
Nancy Wyatt – Very Good
Geoff Simpson – Adequate
Mark Hargrove – Good
State Rep. Pos. 2
Pat Sullivan – Outstanding
Rodrigo M. Yanez – Good
State Senator
Joe Fain – Outstanding
Claudia Kauffman – Very Good
State Supreme Court
Justice Pos. 1
Stan Rumbaugh – Very Good
James Johnson – Very Good
Justice Pos. 6
Brian Chushcoff – Very Good
Charlie Wiggins – Outstanding
Richard Sanders – Good
District Court
Southeast District, Judge Pos. 2
Darrell Phillipson – Outstanding
David Meyer – Very Good
Southeast District, Judge Pos. 6
Matt Williams – Very Good
David Tracy – Very Good
Southwest District, Judge Pos. 6
Susan Mahoney – Outstanding
Judith R. Eiler – Adequate
To determine candidate ratings, volunteers throughout King County have joined the Municipal League’s Candidate Evaluation Committees to study the public record, review candidate questionnaires, speak with references, and conduct interviews with candidates, according to a Municipal League press release.
Committee members then rate each candidate on four criteria: Involvement, Character, Effectiveness and Knowledge. The possible ratings are: Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Adequate, Not Qualified and Insufficient Information to Rate.
The non-partisan ratings process is similar to a job interview and investigates each candidate’s potential to be effective in the office he or she seeks and to beneficially serve the community. Political affiliations or stances on particular issues are not considered during the League rating process. The Municipal League attempted to contact every candidate in a contested race. Candidates were rated even if they declined to participate.
“Our people and process are what make these ratings such important tools for voters,” said Matthew Stubbs, the Muni League’s Candidate Evaluation Committee Chair. “Committee volunteers commit to a nonpartisan assessment process that has been developed and refined by the League for the past 100 years. We use that same process with each candidate we evaluate to make sure League ratings are fair and consistent.”
The ratings
Outstanding – Has made numerous outstanding contributions requiring skills related to the office, is a path-finding and respected leader, brings knowledge and creativity to issues facing the office.
Very Good – Makes significant contributions, is a skilled builder of consensus, inspires confidence in the way he/she would serve, is thorough and attentive to issues.
Good – Has been active and effective in many roles, is capable of moving people to productive action, has strong record of participation in problem solving, shows satisfactory commitment to tackling issues.
Adequate – Has a record of participation and interest, is effective on specific issues, has provoked questions about suitability as an office holder, will need significant time/energy to fill gaps in knowledge.
Not Qualified – Doesn’t appear engaged, has a record that casts doubt on ability to be productive, hasn’t demonstrated ability to deal with responsibilities of office, has narrow focus, inflexible attitude or is otherwise troubling.
