While there are relatively few high-profile gubernatorial races this cycle, one contentious race is unfolding in Washington state. While there are a host of candidates in the Aug. 6 jungle Primary, only two names really matter: Attorney General Bob Ferguson and former Sheriff Dave Reichert.
It’s been nearly four decades since Washington has elected a Republican Governor, but this year trends appear to be shifting, even if slightly. Cook Political Report earlier this year shifted the race from likely Democrat to lean Democrat, a move that, while it still favors Ferguson as a Democrat, is a significant boost for GOP candidates, specifically GOP frontrunner Reichert.
Don’t believe the race is that simple given a crowded ballot? Consider this: Ferguson has taken notice, directly attacking Reichert on the issue with which Democrats have found the most success in recent cycles: abortion.
Just this week, Ferguson launched a new television ad attacking Reichert on the issue. A Democrat attacking a Republican in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision is not newsworthy. But in this context it’s worth noting that the attacks, as they so often do, lack context and mislead voters.
Whether one believes women should have complete access to abortion on one extreme or no access at all on the other, voters deserve clarity on exactly where candidates stand on an important and defining issue.
The ad spotlights a Congressional bill titled “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” It features Dr. Erin Berry, a Seattle-based OBGYN, blasting Reichert as “anti-choice.” She claims in the ad that he voted three times for a “nationwide abortion ban with criminal penalties for doctors.” The ad then flashes three House Resolutions, one each from 2013, 2015 and 2017, all with the same title. Reichert, indeed, voted for all three. But the measures, which stalled, don’t do what the ad purports they do, at least not entirely.
The federal legislation he voted for, along party lines, would have created a national abortion ban, but it would have only covered pregnancies beyond 20 weeks and it included exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, health of the mother and major fetal defects.
So while the ad isn’t a lie, it’s lacking the critical context voters need to make an informed decision.
Consider that recent polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 65% of Americans say abortion should be illegal in the second trimester — generally about 13-26 weeks — and 80% said it should be illegal in the third trimester. Those numbers drop when considering blocking exceptions, but again, the legislation Reichert supported did include such exceptions.
Voters deserve to know Reichert’s record, but they also deserve to know it accurately and fully. To say that he voted for a nationwide abortion ban without including the fact that the proposed ban would have still provided safe, legal abortion access for the entire first trimester and much of the second — a period of time that comprises the vast majority of all abortions — and that it included nationally popular exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. There will, of course, be plenty of voters who still oppose Reichert based on his abortion stance. But there are many, many others — middle of the road voters who don’t live on the political fringes — who wouldn’t see Reichert’s votes as controversial in context.
There’s also this: Reichert himself has pledged not to alter existing Washington state law regarding abortion access. The state guarantees access to abortion up to the point of fetal viability, typically at about 24 weeks, or if an abortion is necessary to protect the health or life of the mother.
“As Governor, I will not change Washington law on this issue because I do not believe any politician, regardless of personal belief, has the right to make that decision,” Reichert said in his own digital message to voters.
While some may argue his words are disingenuous considering his past votes on an abortion ban, even if it wasn’t all that restrictive, the video represents a pledge to voters that, if broken, could be used against him at some time in the future. He’s now on the record stating that he won’t change Washington’s abortion law and that he doesn’t think politicians have the right to meddle in the abortion decision.
The bottom line: Ferguson would have been perfectly in bounds to remind voters of Reichert’s voting record, but by doing so in a way that shields voters from critical details about what Reichert was supporting he is a disservice to voters.
This is commonplace in politicking. Ads often cherry pick hot takes and comments without context to make a desired point. This won’t stop any time soon.
So what is perhaps most troubling about the attacks on Reichert — whether you support him or not — is that the local media has not done what we are doing here: providing the context that campaigning ignores.
The Seattle Times, the state’s preeminent newspaper, has endorsed Ferguson even though its editorial board also acknowledged the “bad” version of Ferguson could include being petty, pushy and overly ambitious — those are their words.
But what they did not do was a simple fact check.
Voters deserve to learn not just headlines, but details, including context campaigns often leave out.
