Republican Dale Whitaker, left, is challenging Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, in the November 2024 election.
Defending Washington’s election system against cyberthreats and misinformation campaigns has been a dominant theme in this year’s contest for secretary of state.
This was the case again on Tuesday when Democrat Steve Hobbs, the incumbent, and Republican Dale Whitaker, the challenger, debated in Edmonds.
Hobbs, of Lake Stevens, was serving as a state senator when, in 2021, Gov. Jay Inslee tapped him to be secretary of state after Republican Kim Wyman left to work for an election security post in President Joe Biden’s Administration. At that moment, Hobbs became the first Democrat in 56 years and the first person of color ever to head the office.
A year later, Hobbs was elected to finish Wyman’s term. He is running for his first full four-year term.
Whitaker, of Spokane, grew up in the small town of Washington in England. He became a U.S. citizen in 2015. “I came to Washington to seek a better life and live the American Dream,” he said Tuesday.
He owns a small tax practice and is executive director of We Believe We Vote, a nonprofit that describes itself as “a Christian ministry providing resources to assist citizens in social, cultural, and governmental engagement based on Biblical truths and Constitutional principles.”
Here are four themes that emerged in Tuesday’s face-off.
How much does experience matter?
Neither Hobbs nor Whitaker is a professional election administrator.
Hobbs argues his 35-year career in the military and performance in the position the past three years makes him better prepared to steer the office in an era of misinformation and cyber threats.
“I have been strong in ensuring that our elections are secure, accessible and transparent,” he said in his closing comments. Amid a surge in disinformation, he said he’s bolstered the office’s efforts to inform the public about the truth.
“So in a world where you have extremist organizations and nation states that would like to see another January the 6th, why would you switch to someone that doesn’t have the necessary election security experience to handle that?” Hobbs said.
Whitaker, in response, described Hobbs as “a polished career politician” whose “failed” leadership had led to less voter trust in elections, more costs for businesses, stagnant voter turnout and a less secure elections system.
The challenger pledged to improve transparency and “re-instill faith” in the electorate that the elections process and infrastructure are accessible and secure.
Clash over in-person voting
Whitaker is among those preaching support for casting ballots at polling places. But he didn’t say he wanted to get rid of mail-in ballots or drop boxes.
“I think we have to give voters as many options as possible so they can show up and vote in a way that makes sense to them,” he said. “Anything less than that is disenfranchisement.”
Voters can cast a ballot in person now by simply going to the auditor’s office or, in some counties, voting centers, Hobbs said.
“Going back to polling centers is an archaic idea, that is incredibly expensive and not very secure,” he said. “So going back to that is not the way to go.”
In a related question, Whitaker also said the state needs to be “more aggressive in ensuring, without disenfranchising voters, that only eligible voters are on the voter rolls.”
He suggested Washington cross reference its voter data with citizenship information collected by the Social Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security and federal immigration services to ensure the rolls are free of ineligible voters.
This drew a sharp rebuke from Hobbs. “This whole myth of undocumented people voting willy nilly is just not true,” he said. “There is not election fraud.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Agreement on some hot-button issues
In the course of an hour, the two candidates landed on the same side at times.
Both oppose moving all elections to even-numbered years, an idea that nearly made it through the Legislature this past session. Neither likes ranked choice or proportional representation voting in state elections.
Making the office of secretary of state a nonpartisan position is okay with each. It would take action by the Legislature and voters to amend the state constitution. When former secretary of state Kim Wyman pitched the idea, she found no takers in the Legislature, Hobbs said.
“I absolutely believe it should be a nonpartisan position,” Whitaker said.
Condemning a consent decree
Whitaker hammered Hobbs for a change quietly made in March to no longer enforce a requirement that a person live at the same address for at least 30-days before an election in order to vote in that election.
A lawsuit filed a year ago contended the state requirement was unconstitutional and violated the federal Voting Rights Act. Those suing also pointed out that state law allowing a person to register and vote on the same day, including Election Day, conflicted with that rule.
Hobbs, in concert with election officials in Thurston and King counties, reached an agreement with those who brought the suit. That consent decree, approved by a federal judge, led to the redoing of printed and online voter registration forms to remove mention of any residency requirement. Recently, the state Republican Party asked the federal judge to set aside the decree.
Whitaker said the consent decree applied only to presidential elections and not state and local ones yet Hobbs “went behind closed doors” to make a deal that circumvented and undermined the voice of the state’s voters.
The residency requirement is to ensure people voting in a local election are tied to those communities, Whitaker said.
“We cannot disenfranchise our local communities by allowing folks to come into our state and into our cities, into our counties on election day, provide an ID and say that they live at an address in that county and then vote on those local elections and initiatives,” he said.
Hobbs defended his action.
“We don’t want voter suppression, because that’s what would happen if you stop people from voting. They have every right to have a voice in their new community that they’re moving to,” he said. “We had a consent decree with a judge. If a judge didn’t agree with this, he would throw it out.”