Legislative District 1 State Representative Positions extremely close


Even after the second day of vote counting the 1st Legislative District State Representative races are still very close.

The top two candidates out for the primary will move on to the general election in November. The top candidate in each race appears to have a solid lead but the second candidate in each position is still too close to call.

Derek Stanford appears to be in the top spot for Position 1. The next 3 candidates, Dennis Richter, Vince DeMiero and Sandy Guinn, are all within 250 votes of each other.

The candidates for Position 2 are in a similar position. Heidi Munson appears to have the top spot and the second place is a close contest between Luis Moscoso and Davie Griffin.

Check back in Thursday night for updated (and possibly final) results. See full election results here.


  1. I hope the MLT News will look into the implications of King County mailing out a voters pamphlet, but Snohomish County requiring its voters to go online. In King County, Democrats overwhelmingly supported Luis Moscoso, but in Snohomish County they were pretty evenly divided. Is this because the KC pamphlet points out Luis’ community service includes working to reduce gang violence, improve transportation and the environment, and advance human rights, while his opponent only helped his daughter’s soccer team? On the Republican side, over 98% of KC voters rejected the candidate who pushed non-tribal gaming, but he got enough votes in SnoCo to keep second place for Position 1 in doubt after two days of counting. Voters need more than self-proclaimed party affiliation to cast the vote that’s right for them, and the Auditor’s office is the only source of information that can potentially reach all voters.

    • I think to make any claims to a candidate’s success, or lack there-of, on the existence or non-existence of a voter’s pamphlet to be a pretty thin stretch.The pamphlelt is a mere fraction of the impacting factors of a campaign, and all candidates have equal opportunity to make phone calls, doorbell, send flyers, or otherwise make themselves be known to all their constituents. I knew every candidate’s name before ever looking at the pamphlet online.With less than 30% turnout for a primary election, it makes absolute fiscal sense to NOT send a voter’s pamphlet. While only 30% of SnoCo voters voted, the county still sent out close to 400,000 ballots, most of which ended up in the garbage. Why should we, as taxpayers, pay for the additional expense of 1-4 pamphlets per household when no one looks at them??The people of this county, this state and this COUNTRY, are looking for greater fiscal responsibility, yet when a simple and effective cost saving measure is found, such as making a voter pamphlet digital only, the people cry ‘no fair!’. I think that even if you COULD quantify the impact of a digital only voter’s guide, the delta would be minuscule. While the turnout for a primary is small, the typical primary voter is already educated in the candidates and issues on which they are voting, probably another reason for the digital only guide.Bottom line, it isn’t the county’s role to educate the voter, it’s FIRST and foremost the voter’s job to educate THEMSELVES, and SECOND, the candidate’s or the issue’s supporter’s job to educate voters on their position.

      • To add on, the lack of primary voter pamphlet was a state decision, not a county one, but King was one of three counties in the state that decided to pay for their own printed guide.

        And, if anyone recalls, there has been only ONE printed PRIMARY voter guide… that was in 2008. The first and only ever state-wide printed guide for a primary.

        • Philosophically, I agree with Mark. I would like voters to take responsibility to educate themselves, and the candidates to make that easy for them. I like the idea of saving money and trees by not sending out a voters pamphlet. However, I also live in a real world where the ideal is not realized, and I have to live with the decisions made by elected officials. There are huge differences between how the counties distributed their vote between Republicans running for Position 1, and Democrats running for Position 2. Even if the voters’ pamphlet only plays a small role, these races are so close that that small role is enough to be decisive. The question I’m asking an investigative journalist to address is whether Snohomish County is being penny wise but pound foolish by not sending a pamphlet to its voters.

          Government plays a big role in determining our quality of life, and I’d like the best people to decide how much to tax and how to spend that money. I think having the voters pamphlet in hand helped King County voters as a whole do a better job of narrowing the field, because a lot of voters are not as diligent as Mark, and the candidates differ enough in their qualifications that the voters pamphlet provided enough information to pick the candidate that best meets individual voter’s preferences. I suspect that in Snohomish County, a lot of people decided not to vote because they didn’t know enough, or just ramdomly picked a name who preferred the party of their choice.

          • Very valid points and a solid arguments David, but I still question the real impact a pamphlet, or lack thereof, had on the outcome of the vote, especially at the tune of $30,000-$40,000. I do totally agree though on many of your points.

            In looking at current results across the states, there are many occurrences of major deltas between counties voting on one race, most of which had no pamphlets in any of the counties involved in that race. LD24 for example… none of the three counties had a pamphlet, yet there are bold differences in voting patterns across the counties. John Dryer goes from 7% of the vote to more than 30% between Clallom and Grays Harbor county. Neither had a printed voter’s pamphlet.

            I’m certainly not dismissing your argument, but I can’t agree that the printed pamphlet is any more beneficial than a digital one without REAL numbers. Especially since the state has only printed a state-wide primary pamphlet ONCE, in 2008. So, what did all the voters do prior to that? There has NEVER been a state-wide printed primary pamphlet prior to 2008, and the ONLY reason the state funded THAT pamphlet was because the voting process was changing state-wide (mail-in). I’m still looking for county funded pamphlets information prior to 2008, but I can’t say I recall seeing one (of course, as I previously stated, I don’t use mine… I try to get my info directly from the source). Information from Sam Reed so far on the web indicates similar local printed pamphlets similar to 2010 prior to 2008.

            I WOULD be very curious to see voter turnout numbers for primaries prior to 2008, and then in 2008, and then in counties with a 2010 guide (Thurston, Pierce & King) and a few of those without in 2010. If the numbers really climb in year/county with a printed pamphlet, that would certainly be a valid argument to pursue a continued printed primary pamphlet. So far I’ve found it pretty steady across the board at 38% turnout for primary elections.

            But I really cannot agree that a difference in numbers for one candidate over another is even partially based on lack of a printed pamphlet. I’m sorry, to me it just sounds like partisan rhetoric. And believe me, I want Luis to whip the pants off Dave and get on that ballot and derail the Munson runaway train.

            So yes, maybe a little research is in order.. a little number crunching across counties and the state to see if there is a trend either way. I certainly would NOT focus on our one county though.

          • I agree that there can be differences across counties that are based on how people perceive the candidates independently of the pamphlet. E.g., one of the candidates for position 1 was a city council member in Bothell. Since Bothell is a big chunk of the King County portion of the district, you’d expect her to do better there than in Snohomish, where Bothell is a relatively small part of the district. The question I’m asking is whether she would have done better if everyone had received a pamphlet, so they knew of her experience. If that experience would make her a better legislator, will the state end up wasting more money than was saved by not printing the pamphlet and contributing to her defeat? (Of course, she might lose in the general even if a voters pamphlet would have gotten her through the primary).

            I hope by raising the issue while the election is too close to call, partisan concerns can be avoided, because the implications could turn out to be in any direction. I’m not sure the historical effort is useful, because the top two primary is fundamentally different than what we used to have. There could be statistics done on this election looking at turnout and undervotes (I think Rossi and Murray are well enough known that voters pamphlet is not important in that race, and that that race probably drove turnout). But I think the main thing that should be done is to interview voters in both counties and finding out whether they looked at their voters pamphlet, and whether it influenced their vote. My prediction is that in the legislative district races and judicial races, more King than Snohomish voters looked at their pamphlets, and what they read influenced their vote. If I’m right about that, we can estimate whether that effect is big enough that who qualified for the general would have changed. If so, we can speculate about and debate whether investing in a voters pamphlet would result in better government. And afterall, the purpose of having a campaign is to give voters a chance to decide which candidates would produce the best government.

          • Valid and detailed points David. I hadn’t considered how the top two primary might impact as well, and yes, could very well negate a historical look into voting trends.

            I guess we’ll have to find that investigative reporter and get some details, as I certainly would be interested to see the results, either way. Your final points hit the mark.

            Dave… BTW, thanks for the best darn volley of posts I’ve ever had the pleasure to partake in here on MLTNews… great points for sure. 🙂

  2. I completely agree with David Bain’s assessment. I walked my Precinct, handing out a 4 page flyer, telling why this election is so important and whom I recommended and why. As the PCO (D) I wrote a strong recommendation for Moscoso. I got a lot of positive feedback for that, and my sense was that many voters were not familiar with his record. Similarly, there are many people who are discouraged with the record of the Democrats and Obama so far, but I included a list of their accomplishments and found a very positive response to that as well. The voter’s pamphlet has good statements for both sides of each race, and it is so easy to access and can be kept and reread as needed. Such a document is much less convenient to access via computer. I do believe it could have made a big difference AND could have raised the number of voters because it makes it easier to vote. Deborah Nicely, PCO, Bostian

Leave a Reply