Minkin is a research associate at Issue One. Clapp is the campaign manager for election protection at Issue One. Whaley is the director of election protection at Issue One. Van Voorhis is a research intern at Issue One. Beckel is the research director for Issue One.
Julie Wise, who is not registered with any political party, has more than 24 years of election administration experience. Since 2000, she has worked for the board of elections in King County, Wash., an area that includes Seattle and is home to about 1.4 million registered voters. In 2015, she was elected the director of elections in a nonpartisan race, earning 72 percent of the vote. She was reelected in 2019 and 2023, when she garnered 84 percent of the vote.
King is the most populous county in Washington and ranks as the 13th largest in the country. In 2011, Washington became the second state in the nation, after Oregon, to conduct elections nearly exclusively by mail ballot, meaning Wise supervises election administration processes in one of the largest vote-by-mail jurisdictions in the country.
A passionate advocate for increasing voter accessibility, Wise has pioneered numerous initiatives and reforms to remove barriers to voting. She has added four non-English languages to King County’s full-service language suite, increased the number of ballot drop boxes from 10 to more than 75, and successfully advocated to the state Legislature for prepaid return postage for Washington’s vote-by-mail system. She has also testified to the Legislature about the importance of the re-enfranchisement of Washington residents convicted of a felony.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Additionally, Wise has worked to expand voter outreach and education through the Voter Education Fund, a first-of-its-kind, public-philanthropic partnership that provides funds and training to community organizations in King County doing nonpartisan voter registration and education work in historically marginalized communities.
Over the years, she has earned numerous awards and accolades for her work, including the Washington chapter of the Korean American Coalition’s Rocky Kim Pioneer Award, the Election Center Democracy Award, the 2019 Fix Democracy First Elected Official of the Year, and the Voter Outreach Award from the Washington secretary of state in both 2017 and 2021.
Wise — an avid hiker and self-described “farm girl at heart” — has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy campaign since 2023, advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable and sufficient federal funding of elections.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?
Julie Wise: Like a lot of election administrators, I ended up in this profession by happenstance. In early 2000, I was going to university, and I needed a job. I saw the county was hiring for that upcoming presidential election. They needed help answering phones in their phone bank. I was immediately hooked.
I loved the opportunity to be of service to my community, and I also saw an opportunity to streamline a process. I am a big geek when it comes to improving processes that could be more accessible for voters and easier for election administrators.
I also fell in love with the people. This industry really attracts some of the funniest, smartest, giving people, and that really drew me to this work. I started in 2000, and 24 years later, I have not left.
IO: Which part of the election administration story, in Washington specifically, do you think is not told enough or widely understood enough?
JW: The people who run our elections are professionals. Election administrators are trained and often certified on the state and national level. It’s really important for folks to realize that election administrators are not volunteers. These are individuals that are passionate about their careers and about counting every single vote. They are nonpartisan civil servants who are drawn to this work because they want to make sure that the voices of their community are being heard.
Also, election administrators are members of the community. They are the folks that are in line at the grocery store with you. They are in PTA meetings with you. They are your mothers, your grandfathers, your brothers, your sisters. Sometimes that gets lost, that we are human beings, and that what drives us to this work is a passion for democracy. We're trained, professional, certified election administrators that really believe in democracy.
We believe democracy is at its finest when all voices are heard. Our goal is always to increase access, meaning that we're removing barriers because we want you to be able to use your voice. We don't care how you vote. We just want to make sure that you do vote and that you show up. Accurate, secure and transparent elections and at the core of what we do. I think sometimes that gets lost in the narrative, especially as of late.
IO: How are you working to bring more transparency to the world of election administration?
JW: At King County Elections, we believe in radical transparency, and how we live that is by providing ultimate access.
When a voter puts their ballot into a mailbox or into one of our secure official ballot drop boxes, there's sort of this void of not knowing what happens next to the ballot. There are so many detailed steps and processes that happen to the ballot after that critical moment of a voter submitting it that we want to make sure that people have transparency around.
If you're going to buy into the election system, you need to see and understand what that looks like. We’re removing the curtain, if you will, as to what's happening during ballot processing. We do this in many different ways.
We were one of the first counties in the country to provide web cameras to live stream our staff hard at work at each of those key processes and steps of when the ballot gets back to the elections facility. We've also provided radical transparency to our media. We welcome our media into our facility. We provide real access to all of the operations.
Another key component is our observer program, a nationally award-winning program that we're very proud of. We have a program where we provide ample opportunity for both of our major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as well as a nonpartisan observer program that's run through the League of Women Voters to ensure that we've got observers here in our elections office watching the process.
Another thing that I just absolutely love is that when we designed our facilities, our headquarters for King County Elections, we thought about transparency. We have a literally transparent, Plexiglass loop where folks can come in and watch us processing ballots.
We have nothing to hide, and we want people to be able to see their elections at work. You can give yourself a self-guided tour. We've got touch screen units across that fifth-of-a-mile loop so voters can understand what's happening at each step of the process.
We also love to provide tours ourselves. These transparency measures really help make things click for people about the election process.
IO: How many voters are on the roll in your jurisdiction and what are the main challenges of a jurisdiction of that size?
JW: King County makes up about a third of the voters in Washington, at about 1.4 million registered voters, and we have some of the most diverse ZIP codes in the entire country. We have over 180 languages spoken here in King County.
One of the opportunities and challenges that we have in King County is making sure that our voters have access to the key critical election data, material and information. We provide translated materials in seven different languages. Pamphlets, ballots and any correspondence will be in their preferred language. We also provide a host of other brochures and forms and online voter registration access in dozens of languages. Making sure that folks can understand the election process is really critical, especially if English is not your first language.
It's one thing to provide translation and interpretation services. It is another thing to make sure your community knows that those options exist. One of the ways in which we have really worked with getting key information into limited-English-speaking communities is a program that is very near and dear to my heart. In 2016, after I first got elected, one of the languages we were translating ballot materials into was Vietnamese. I went and spoke to a group of about 200 Vietnamese community members, and I asked by show of hands how many knew that we provided ballot materials in their language. One person raised their hand.
King County goes above and beyond. We don't wait for the Department of Justice to tell us what languages we should provide election materials in. We go ahead, and we look at the data from school districts, courts and jails, and we go ahead and add those languages.
One of the things we started was a Voter Education Fund, where we have trusted messengers in the community. How you engage with the Somali community is different than how you engage with the Chinese community — which is different from engaging with the youth, low income or incarcerated communities. You have to have unique plans to reach and engage each of those communities in a meaningful way.
That is a hard lift for election offices to do when their core job responsibility is to run accurate, secure elections. But we must take a step back and empower the amazing community-based organizations we have that have been doing work in their respective communities for decades. King County provides $1 million every two years to community-based organizations to get out the vote, to engage with those communities, to reach out to folks to let them know we have materials in different languages, to demystify the election process and to encourage them not only to vote, but to run for office — because we know that's another key component about engaging in elections.
IO: Many people are surprised to learn the federal government doesn't routinely fund the costs of running elections. What is the price tag of running an election in your jurisdiction and where does funding for election administration come from?
JW: Consistent, reliable funding is critical to running accurate, secure and transparent elections. We're fortunate in King County, for the most part. We've got a budget of about $20 million annually, and we get about 50 percent of that as revenue from the jurisdictions that we run elections for. We have some major players, though, that do not pay for their elections, like the federal government. That impacts all of us, but especially those rural small counties that do not have consistent, reliable funding.
The federal government is the only jurisdiction in Washington state that is not footing the bill for their elections that we are running. There are a lot of grant opportunities, which are fabulous and those are welcomed by election administrators, but grant opportunities are very hard to budget and plan for. When you do not know how much money you're going to get, you're hoping and praying that you're going to be able to get funding to keep staff safe. That's not okay.
Elections are the foundation of our democracy. If we want to make sure that we've got good, consistent, reliable systems — from technology to safety to staffing — we need to be able to have reliable funding.
It's not fair that you have a district with a thousand voters that's paying their fair share of the elections, but you've got federal races on the ballot and the federal government is not paying for those.
IO: What should the federal government do to make sure that they're routinely paying their fair share for election administration costs?
JW: Funding needs to be a regular budget line item. Funding for critical elections infrastructure should not be an afterthought, or just grant programs, or just sporadic funding during presidential elections. We run federal elections every two years. Any election administrator will tell you that as soon as we finish this presidential election, we are right onto planning the next election. It takes that much time and effort.
My No. 1 priority this presidential election is keeping my staff and my voters safe. These are people that are devoted and dedicated to the cause of democracy. We need to protect them. Reliable, consistent funding would really help with that. If we fundamentally believe that everyone has a right to the ballot box, then we really need to put our money behind that.
IO: As the presidential election approaches, there has been a lot of concern across the country from election administrators about the use of deepfakes and generative artificial intelligence spreading false information about the election process. What concerns do you have about these threats, and how has Washington been able to provide resources to curb your concerns about them?
JW: As technology evolves, we’ve got to be preparing and planning. When we talk about AI, and we talk about going into a presidential election, one of the things that we did at King County Elections was tabletop exercises about crisis scenarios. We have also been monitoring information.
There are pros to AI, but I think that we have to be very cognizant and very aware of AI and deepfake activities that could manipulate the election. It is critically important for us to be able to get ahead of it.
I'm also really proud of the work that we've done in our state legislature ahead of this. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs made a legislation request of Senate Bill 5152 this last legislative session. This bill prohibits political campaigns from using realistic but false images, videos or audio to deliberately spread election disinformation.
IO: We have seen a rise in threats, harassment, and intimidation of election officials and election workers this year as a result of the spread of false election information. Earlier this year, House Bill 1241 was signed into law in Washington state, which made it a class C felony to threaten an election worker in writing or in person. How will this legislation help protect election workers? And what more do you believe is needed to protect election workers and election officials?
JW: That legislation was requested by myself and the other local election officials in Washington. We told the Legislature that we really need to be protecting our election administrators — not just the elected folks that run the elections, but all of our election administration staff. We had a great law in place that made it a felony if you harassed someone in person, but we needed to tie up the loose ends to include virtual harassment of people in writing.
Here in King County, last year, we received two envelopes threatening us, and unfortunately both of those envelopes contained fentanyl. It is incredibly important for us to continue to have the help of local, federal and state law enforcement to really make sure that we're helping our local election offices be prepared for scenarios like this or other scenarios that can happen.
Again, it goes back to funding. We need reliable, federal funding to be able to make sure that our elections facilities can handle things like fentanyl-laced envelopes, active shooter trainings and security measures like bulletproof glass in front of our elections facilities. Those are all costly things, but they are critically important to safeguarding our elections, our staff and our voters. We need to see more reliable funding, and we need to see consistent laws across this country about protecting our election administrators and protecting our voters when they're accessing the ballot box.
IO: How are you coordinating with law enforcement to increase the safety of your communities and of elections? And how do you approach communicating about the presence of law enforcement at polling places to your community?
JW: It's such a delicate balance. We want to make sure that voters are safe and that our staff are safe, but we also want to make sure that that doesn't deter people from voting. When we do hire law enforcement, we work with law enforcement to talk candidly about how body language, or the literal physical positioning of where their cars are, can be perceived as more intimidating for our voters. It's being very cognizant of that and being very mindful. We also provide all of our law enforcement with election law books. They are not always dealing with election laws, so we educate them.
Also, I meet every month with what we call the Elections Incident Response Team, which is made up of federal, county and local law enforcement. I'm a subject matter expert in elections. They're a subject matter expert in protecting our community. We get everyone in the room together once a month and talk about what we're hearing at the federal and local level. We're all working together so that we're fully connected.
IO: Given all of these challenges, what has inspired you to stay in this line of work for more than 20 years?
JW: The people. I find joy in working with both voters and the staff.
What also fills my cup is when I talk to community members and a person has just been naturalized, getting the right to vote and getting to see how excited they are to be able to get their ballot and vote [for the first time]. Those sort of things remind me of why we're doing this work and what we're here for.
Also, I'm a person who loves change and continuous improvement. There are always ways for us to do elections better — better access for our voters, more streamlined, quicker election results. All of those things really make me geek out and really interest me.
I joke sometimes that I'm not leaving until I get 100 percent voter registration of eligible voters in King County and 100 percent turnout. Those are always going to be my goals. When you remove barriers to voter access, people will show up and make their voices heard. That brings me to tears. It gives me goosebumps to think that we were part of that.
IO: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are some of your hobbies and what is a fun fact that most people might not know about you?
JW: I am an avid hiker. I absolutely love to be outdoors. I also love my puppy that I got a couple of months ago. I live very close to the Puget Sound, and I love to start my day with a cup of coffee and grounding myself and meditating on the beach and watching my goofy dog chase seagulls.
Something else that people might not know about me is that I'm a farm girl at heart. I know how to show a hog. I know how to shear a sheep. I know how to milk a goat.
IO: What is your favorite book or movie?
JW: I usually have a nonfiction book in one hand and a self-help book in the other. I think “The Four Agreements” is one of the best books of all time. As for movies, my favorite is probably “The Usual Suspects.”
The Israeli military fires Iron Dome missiles to intercept dozens of rockets launched from Lebanon at the northern port city of Haifa on Oct. 8.
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
As rockets are once again streaking across the skies of the Middle East and the cries of the bereaved echo through its ravaged streets, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words and teachings reverberate like a mournful prayer in my spirit. They stir within me a deep sociopolitical and theological question, "Is 'just war' just?”
In this ongoing conflict, as in all wars, nation-states are forced to confront the terrible paradox of the just war theory — that the pursuit of justice can sometimes demand the violence it seeks to vanquish.
Just war doctrine roots trace back to the writings of St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas. Augustine argued that war could be a purpose for the restoration of peace, while Aquinas' commentary is often interpreted as giving allowance to war. Though war was thought to be an inherent evil, there were certain conditions for its justification, including just cause (self-defense or the protection of innocents), last resort (all peaceful means exhausted), probability of success, proportionality (the ends justify the means) and right intention (the goal is peace, not conquest or domination).
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
However, even when these criteria are met, war inevitably brings about indiscriminate suffering, violating the fundamental principle of noncombatant immunity. Presently, Israel and Hamas are claiming cause. Israel argues its right to self-defense against indiscriminate rocket attacks, while Palestinians point to decades of occupation, blockade and creeping annexation.
The moral calculus of war becomes even more fraught when geopolitical alliances are factored in. The United States has long been Israel's staunchest backer, providing billions in military aid each year. This unwavering support, rooted in a complex mix of strategic interests, ideological alignment and domestic political pressures, significantly bolsters Israel's military might. Conversely, Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, funneling weapons and cash to bolster their military capabilities. Tehran views these relationships as a means to project power, challenge Israeli dominance and advance its regional agenda. These external influences further complicate the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive.
Such patron-client relationships further entrench the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive. Over the years, such relations have created a destructive cycle where escalation by one side is met with counter-escalation by the other, fueled by their respective backers; amidst this tangled web of alliances, the humanitarian cost mounts. Innocent civilians are often left to bear the burden of violence. Thus, leaving the international community struggling to navigate these competing interests hampers efforts to broker peaceable solutions. The longer military conflict persists, the greater the moral imperative to protect innocent lives and arrive at a point of just resolution.
Pursuing peace can be supported even at the height of cyclical violence when retribution continues. The efforts of good-faith actors or humanitarians demand more than a mere ceasefire. What is truly necessary is a commitment to address the underlying grievances, the longstanding grievances fueling historic conflict.
Despite its flaws, just war theory, for some, acts as a moral framework for judgment of their actions in the crucible of conflict. But it must be complemented by a tireless dedication to nonviolence and restorative justice championed by prophetic arbitrators like Dr. King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In reflection of devastation and unrest across the region, we are reminded that justice is not found in the rubble of war but in acknowledging the dignity and sacredness of all human life.
The query is whether war is a just act. It ought to serve as a mirror held up to the soul of humanity in assessing its most authentic reflection. Forcing nations and individuals alike to wrestle with our respective capacity for cruelty and compassion, our penchant for division and our yearning for unity. As allied forces and regional actors involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consider their next moves, pray all remember that true strength lies not in military might but in the courage to choose peace. All parties should prioritize the most vulnerable while seeking to enact justice. A justice that sincerely seeks peace — respecting and embracing all, regardless of their faith or nationality. Only time will tell.
Former President Jimmy Carter observes voting procedures in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, in 1990.
Merloe provides strategic advice on elections and democracy in the United States and internationally. He worked with former President Jimmy Carter on elections and democratic transitions on four continents.
On Oct. 1, President Jimmy Carter turns 100 years old. According to reports, he is concerned about the dynamics surrounding the 2024 election and hopeful that the United States will turn the page. That is no surprise given his devotion to this country and his dedication to fostering genuine elections around the world.
He first observed a foreign election in 1989 as co-leader, with former President Gerald Ford, of the joint international election observation mission to Panama organized by the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute and what is now the International Republican Institute. His role in helping to expose Manuel Noriega’s attempted fraud in that election had profound effects in Panama and inspired Carter to do more. Often working with NDI, he guided The Carter Center into the forefront of international election observation in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
In my role of almost three decades leading NDI’s international election programs, I had the honor of working closely with Carter in numerous elections. I witnessed him bring together for the first time in years the two antagonistic leaders of Bangladesh and negotiate their renouncing violence in an upcoming election. I saw him help Liberia’s contentious presidential candidates accept electoral results. He brought international attention to the credibility of Palestinian elections and promoted confidence in Peru’s post-Fujimori elections when public trust was fragile.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
His successful bridge building in such hyper-polarized circumstances was aided by his reputation for listening, analyzing and offering recommendations based on ethical principles, rather than an advantage of the moment or some personal transactional consideration. In 2005, Carter joined NDI’s then board chair, Madeleine Albright, and other dignitaries at a commemoration led by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to launch the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, which is now endorsed by more than 50 international organizations in an ongoing implementation process that guides their work.
In keeping with that spirit, on the International Day of Democracy (Sept. 15.), five leading organizations — International IDEA, The Carter Center, NDI, the International Foundation for Election Systems and the Kofi Annan Foundation — launched the Model Commitments for Advancing Genuine and Credible Elections. The commitments, already supported by nine other key international organizations, provide a basis for dialogue around safeguarding and improving electoral processes in any country — including in the United States. While the urgent challenges of securing election administration, protecting the right to vote, addressing disinformation and potential disruptions, plus curtailing threats and potentials for political violence are of immediate concern to countries heading to elections, the commitments provide a wider context.
As one of the people involved in developing the declaration of principles and the model commitments, I can attest that they were inspired by the examples set by Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Madeleine Albright and so many others who dedicated themselves to bringing about genuine elections and advancing democracy.
On the occasion of his 100th birthday it is fitting to shine a bright light on this aspect of President Carter’s rich legacy of accomplishments in this country and around the globe. Hopefully, we will amplify his legacy as we move ahead, both here and abroad.
Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.” This is the fifth entry in a series on political followership.
We recently read in The Washington Post that men in Afghanistan are regretting that they did not stand up sooner for the rights of their wives and daughters, now that the Taliban is imposing severe standards of dress and conduct on them.
Duh.
That’s the oldest regret there is when it comes to oppression:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
— Martin Niemöller, Lutheran Pastor
Niemöller was initially a Nazi supporter … until the Nazis began to target the Lutheran Church. Once they come for you, it is too late. Start worrying when they come for your neighbor.
But here’s the trick. You can’t just leave it to the “opposition” to speak up. Of course they are going to speak up. And they will get tuned out.
It’s the loyal supporters who need to speak up early. Theirs is the voice that makes a difference and, as I explain in my new book “To Stop a Tyrant,” they can apply the “brakes” to toxic behavior. Here’s the interesting news: They can do this while still supporting the leader if he or she accepts the boundaries of communal decency.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Take Anna Kilgore. It was she who filed a police report blaming Haitian immigrants when her cat went missing. Whoops.
Miss Sassy was found several days later in Kilgore’s own basement. But the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates were already using the story to whip up anti-immigrant fever.
What to do? Kilgore is a Trump supporter. Because her cat story is already uber-public, this could make the candidate she is supporting look bad. Despite this, what does she do? Anna Kilgore sends an apology to her Haitian neighbors
In Yiddish there is an expression for that: being a mensch. A mensch, while literally meaning “a man,” colloquially means an ethical person who does the right thing.
We need “menschkeit” (the quality of being a mensch) in every walk of life, on both sides of the political aisle. Ideally, this comes from our political leaders. But let’s not depend on them. We, the political followers, have the power to do what is right and — let’s go out on a limb here — the moral obligation to do so.
A colleague of mine is famous for asking, “How many people did Adolf Hitler kill?” Her answer: none.
There is no evidence of Hitler ever having pulled the trigger on a single person other than himself at the very end. Who did kill the millions of prisoners in extermination camps? His followers who did not stop his frothing hate speech early enough to avoid their own horrible complicity, while they still could.
Look around. Who is being targeted now by political vitriol? If it is not you, surely you can go back to sleep. Or can you? Who should you be speaking up for now, so that later there is someone left to speak for you?
When someone does speak up, here’s another wild idea: Support them! When a neighbor, Erika Lee, heard that Kilgore found Miss Sassy, she was appalled that she had inadvertently triggered a national frenzy by having written a Facebook post about the missing tabby. She took down the post. Lee has publicly regretted contributing to the story based on something she heard from yet another neighbor who also heard it from someone …
Whoops again. Whether online or over the clothesline, we are all responsible for verifying salacious tidbits before spreading them throughout the system. (No need to feel guilty. Just don’t do it again.)
The Taliban is at it once more in Afghanistan. Whose behavior needs standing up to here, in our own political system? If we oppose them, have at it. If we support them, it’s even more important to stand up to their overreach.
After all, if they don’t listen to us, who will they listen to?
Another wise man said, “If not now, when?”
