skip navigation

Ask MRSC - Elections

Below are selected “Ask MRSC” inquiries we have received from local governments throughout Washington State related to elections. Click on any question to see the answer.

These questions are for educational purposes only. All questions and answers have been edited and adapted for posting to the MRSC website, and all identifying information.


Have a Question? Ask MRSC!

Officials and employees from eligible government agencies can use our free one-on-one inquiry service, Ask MRSC. With one call or click you can get a personalized answer from one of our trusted attorneys, policy consultants, or finance experts!

Ask MRSC



Reviewed: October 2024

Assuming the employee is otherwise qualified to hold elective office, Washington State does not have a “resign to run” law, so there is no bar for a current employee to run for city council. However, it is a separate question what happens if they win (or wish to be appointed to a vacancy).

If a current staff member were to win a council seat, they would then have to consider whether continued employment with the city would be a financial conflict of interest. See MRSC’s page on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest. Any renewal of collective bargaining agreements or employment contracts or other pay or benefits increases would likely give rise to an unavoidable conflict of interest. Note, however, that there are exceptions for municipal officers serving in jurisdictions below a certain size where the value of the contract is below a certain dollar threshold. See RCW 42.23.030(6).

Even without the financial conflict of interest, it also becomes a blurred line of authority for a councilmember to have to answer to the mayor as an employee.

If one of the city’s employees does win a council seat, the city attorney will need to provide legal advice about the specific situation.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: December 2023

Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) regulates the law in this area, and they have a helpful document titled Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns. The guide reviews the state law restriction in RCW 42.17A.555, as applied to standard local government actions.

RCW 42.17A.555 provides that agency officials and employees are not to use public facilities or resources to engage in political activities. The guide includes a section entitled Technology (websites, emails, computerized calling system) that informs the question here. In short, email systems are considered public facilities, so a city email shouldn’t be used to aid a campaign for or against a candidate or ballot measure.

Update: Effective January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A.555 has been recodified as RCW 29B.45.010.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: October 2023

RCW 29A.84.040 makes it a misdemeanor to remove or deface lawfully placed political advertising including yard signs or billboards without authorization. Check with your city attorney to see if your city has adopted this statute. If so, a violation can be charged in municipal court. If not, it will have to be referred to the county prosecutor.

For a bit more background, a local government cannot prohibit the placement of political signs in the areas between the street and sidewalk (or in the unpaved section of the right-of-way where there is no sidewalk), commonly referred to as the “parking strip.” As a general rule, the public right-of-way, which includes parking strips, is only an easement and the underlying property belongs to the abutting property owner. As such, only the property owner or the tenant of the property owner may determine what, if any, political signs are placed in the parking strip. In contrast, a jurisdiction can prohibit temporary signs in the untraveled area of a right-of-way that does not involve parking strips, such as in boulevard medians or in the middle of roundabouts. For more information, see this blog post, Regulating Non-Commercial Temporary Signs During Election Season, and our Sign Regulation webpage.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: August 2023

MRSC’s position is that elected officials may be appointed to serve on ballot committees. RCW 29A.32.280 does not place any restrictions or impose any requirements with respect to who serves on a “for” or “against” ballot measure committee. In response to previous inquiries, MRSC has taken the position that appointing individuals to such committees is part of the normal and regular conduct of government pursuant to RCW 42.17A.555(3). That would be the case even if the individual appointed is a member of the governing body.

Once appointed, under RCW 42.17A.555, the members must avoid using any facilities of a public office or agency in connection with their work on the committee. For further guidance, we recommend contacting the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC).

Update: Effective January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A.555 has been recodified as RCW 29B.45.010.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: February 2023

RCW 42.17A.320 provides that all written political advertising, whether relating to candidates or ballot propositions, shall include the sponsor’s name and address. The definition of “political advertising” is set forth in RCW 42.17A.005(40). The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has information on Sponsor IDs on its website.  

Local government communications that meet the requirements of RCW 42.17A.555 would likely not meet the definition of “political advertising.” RCW 42.17A.555 (3) provides an exception for “activities which are a part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.” The PDC Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns further define and explain “normal and regular conduct.” In particular: 

7.a. Historically, the PDC has routinely advised and held that with respect to election-related publications, one jurisdiction-wide objective and fair presentation of the facts per ballot measure is appropriate.  
 
In addition, if an agency* has also customarily distributed this information through means other than a jurisdiction-wide mailing (e.g. regularly scheduled newsletter, website, bilingual documents, or other format), that conduct has also been permitted under RCW 42.17A.555 so long as the activity has been normal and regular for the government agency. For more discussion of fact sheets, see this staff analysis
 
b. The PDC will presume that every agency may distribute throughout its jurisdiction an objective and fair presentation of the facts for each ballot measure.  If the agency distributes more than this jurisdiction-wide single publication, the agency must be able to demonstrate to the PDC that this conduct is normal and regular for that agency.  In other words, the agency must be able to demonstrate that for other major policy issues facing the government jurisdiction, the agency has customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that undertaken for the ballot measure.  
 
c. Agencies are urged to read the definitions of "normal and regular" at WAC 390-05-271 and WAC 390-05-273. Agencies need to be aware, however, that in no case will the PDC view a marketing or sales effort related to a campaign or election as normal and regular conduct. 
 
8.    The PDC attributes publications or other informational activity of a department or subdivision as the product of the local agency as a whole. 
 
9.    Providing an objective and fair presentation of facts to the public of ballot measures that directly impact a jurisdiction's maintenance and operation, even though the measure is not offered by the jurisdiction, may be considered part of the normal and regular conduct of the local agency.  The agency must be able to demonstrate that for other major policy issues facing the jurisdiction, the agency has customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that undertaken for the ballot measure. 

Update: Effective January 1, 2026:

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: February 2023

No, under state law, all city and town elected offices (including council positions) are elected on a nonpartisan basis. See RCW 29A.52.231. Although a candidate may choose to disclose their party affiliations in the course of campaigning for office, this information would not be placed with candidate names on the ballots, nor should the city include a candidate’s preferred political party in city information. RCW 29A.04.110 defines “partisan office” and does not include elective offices in cities or towns:

"Partisan office" means a public office for which a candidate may indicate a political party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy and have that preference appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The following are partisan offices:
(1) United States senator and United States representative;
(2) All state offices, including legislative, except (a) judicial offices and (b) the office of superintendent of public instruction;
(3) All county offices except (a) judicial offices and (b) those offices for which a county home rule charter provides otherwise.

In addition to judicial positions and the state superintendent of public instruction, city, town, and special purpose district elective offices are required to be nonpartisan. RCW 29A.52.231 provides:

The offices of superintendent of public instruction, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the superior court, and judge of the district court shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such. All city, town, and special purpose district elective offices shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such. (Emphasis added).

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: October 2022

Generally, the city may allow use of its facilities on a non-discriminatory basis. It may also produce fact-based information regarding a bond measure.

As we note on our Use of Public Facilities in Election Campaigns page, "normal and regular conduct" is allowed. Under this exception, a local government could prepare an objective and neutral presentation of facts concerning a ballot measure. For example, details could be provided to citizens concerning the financial impact of an initiative on the local government, such as how revenues would be affected by its passage. Care must be taken that this information be presented in a fair, objective manner.

Many local governments also allow use of their meeting room facilities on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis to the public, usually for a rental fee. If this is the case, then it would be allowable to hold a public forum for citizens with pro and con representatives discussing an initiative in a public meeting hall.

You can get more specific guidance as well as some examples from the Public Disclosure Commission’s website. Their PDC: Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns provides an overview of Washington state law in an easy-to-read format indicating what activities are permitted or not permitted, as well as general questions to consider.

The city should consult its city attorney on the specific language the city intends to share, as well as the use of the city facilities.

(Link to this question)