LETTER: Not voter suppression
At the last Burien City Council meeting, two women—Joan McGilton and Rachael Levine tried to use the term “voter suppression” to falsely describe whether or not Burien had the right to remove annexation from the ballot.
Of course, Burien had the right to remove annexation from the ballot by state law and it would have in no way fit the definition of voter suppression. These two gals need to learn to consult the dictionary before slinging around loaded, inflammatory terms that do not really explain what is going on.
By definition, voter suppression attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.
The methods of voter suppression include impediments to voter registration, photo ID laws, purging voter rolls, Jim Crow laws, ex-felon disenfranchisement, disinformation about voting procedures, partisan election, administrative inequality in Election Day resources and caging lists. My source is Wikipedia.
These things were not suggested at the City Council meeting. This was, in no way, an attempted voter suppression nor did it match the definition.
However, Ms. Levine appears to have difficulty in reading and interpreting its content correctly.
According to the Highline Times story, “ She also said that Burien state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon had assured her that Burien would receive the entire $5 million a year in state sales tax revenue for annexing North Highline.”
This is not what Fitzgibbon said in his letter that she read to the audience. He stated that he believed that Burien could qualify for the money. His statement was his opinion and not a proven fact per any state calculations.
It always pays to read the fine print and the definition, if you really want the facts. Maybe neither of these women is really interested in facts but are looking to make a case for what they want to hear.