Attorneys seek to move Latino voting rights case from Pasco to Olympia, fearing bias

Three Tri-Citians looking to change how Franklin County commissioners are elected want to take their case to the state capital.

They say a combination of political influence, fear of retaliation and publicity will make it questionable whether they will get a fair hearing.

The Franklin County commissioners weighed in last week, unanimously supporting a motion to have Prosecutor Shawn Sant fight the move.

“The Superior Court judges in Franklin County will make a wise decision,” Commissioner Clint Didier said during a Nov. 30 meeting. “The voters who elected those Superior Court judges have faith in them to make the correct decision.”

Commissioner Brad Peck said Washington state law doesn’t allow the venue to move to Thurston County.

The hearing scheduled for Dec. 13 is the latest turn in the legal battle between three Pasco members of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the county.

The league members with the help of the UCLA Voting Rights Project say the system for electing commissioners, as well as the voting district boundaries, unfairly dilutes the choices of Latino voters.

The hearing is coming on the same day as an attempt by a Franklin County Republican precinct committee officer to get the case thrown out of court.

Arguing for the venue change, the attorneys for the voting rights project said there’s a history of personal and political retaliation against people who speak out against elected officials in Franklin County and there are “the public actions, statements and shenanigans” of Didier and fellow Commissioner Rocky Mullen to consider.

“There are multiple reasons to question whether an impartial trial can be had in Franklin or surrounding counties,” attorneys Edwardo Morfin and Sonni Waknin said in their motion to move the case to Western Washington.

Retaliation, misinformation

Morfin and Waknin raised six reasons to move the case to Olympia, including what they call a pattern of misinformation and retaliation that hurts the chance of a fair trial.

“Defendant commissioners, led by defendant Commissioner Didier, has created adverse publicity and sowed public contempt for this suit,” the attorneys wrote.

In particular, Didier has blamed a Latina candidate for Franklin County commissioner for the lawsuit, and has called the Washington Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

He also has framed the case as a referendum on whether the county is “racist,” and said the suit is just about getting Democrats elected.

“This attempt to categorize this suit as attempts by ‘liberals’ or Californians to redistrict Franklin County is not just untruthful, but it minimizes the real concerns of the effect of the at-large system, which has had racially discriminatory effects and prejudices the plaintiff’s case in the community,” said court documents.

The attorneys also argued there is a history of retaliation when people speak out against elected officials, pointing to attempts to fire County Administrator Keith Johnson.

One incident came after an executive session to discuss the voting rights case, according to the attorneys.

They also noted that some local judges share the same political connections and are voters in some of the same elections being questioned in the lawsuit.

Constitutional challenge

James Gimenez, a Franklin County Republican precinct committee officer, is also getting his chance to argue against the Washington Voting Rights Act.

The motion aimed at dismissing the case is expected to be heard on the same day.

Gimenez is being represented by Joel Ard, an attorney that Didier previously reached out to as part of plans to challenge that lawsuit.

Ard is arguing that the 2018 law eliminates a requirement that the group protected by the law doesn’t have to live in an area close to each other.

He also said that using a “race-based remedy” to redraw the commissioner districts violates state law banning the use of race., and that it grants a group of people special privileges.

“The hastily-drafted, blatantly unconstitutional Washington Voting Rights Act does not confer standing on plaintiffs, self-described of an undefined ‘race minority,’” Ard argued. “Even if it did, the Legislature repealed the race-based districting mandate twice after enacting it.”