‘Is there going to be smooth sailing?’: KIRO hosts debate Ferguson’s offer of National Guard support for WA elections

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson’s offer of National Guard support for election security sparked a debate on “The Jake and Spike Show” on KIRO Newsradio over voter intimidation and whether the hosts were applying the same standard to state and federal involvement.

Ferguson wrote to county election auditors, offering National Guard personnel to inconspicuously monitor ballot boxes in high-traffic areas to ensure people can exercise their right to vote safely, KIRO 7 reported. 

KIRO host Spike O’Neill questioned what election observers would consider suspicious behavior, suggesting that scrutiny could unfairly target voters based on race.

“Is it the observer’s job to question the validity of that person approaching the ballot box or dropping a ballot into a drop box itself?” Spike asked.

KIRO fill-in host Greg Tomlin saw Ferguson’s offer as a reasonable precaution but questioned whether a Democratic governor’s deployment should face less scrutiny than election monitoring under a Republican administration.

Greg questions whether politics shapes the response

Spike described the governor’s offer as support from plainclothes National Guard personnel who could help if an incident occurred at a voting location. He identified Pierce, Thurston, King and Snohomish as counties that had accepted the offer.

Greg welcomed the precaution while lamenting the circumstances behind it.

“I file these stories under the heading ‘Sad State of Affairs,’” Greg said.

He compared his reaction to visiting a shopping mall outside Jerusalem around 2008, where entry required passing through a security checkpoint and metal detector. He remembered feeling both saddened by the need for security and grateful it was available.

Greg applied that same reasoning to Ferguson’s proposal.

“I view it as a warranted move, and also very sad at the same time,” Greg said.

But he also questioned whether political affiliation was determining how people viewed an official presence around voting locations.

“And now are we just in a situation where it’s like, well, if your Democrat governor is making available some kind of official monitoring presence, that’s a good thing,” Greg said. “But if it’s Republicans doing it, that’s not a good thing.”

Spike draws a distinction between protecting and questioning voters

Spike argued that the purpose of election monitoring — and how observers engage with voters — should determine whether it is appropriate.

He distinguished between protecting access to voting and questioning whether someone approaching a ballot box should be allowed to vote. His concern centered on what partisan observers might interpret as grounds for suspicion.

“If they see something suspicious, what qualifies as suspicious to an RNC voting monitor?” Spike asked. “Is it voting while Brown?”

Greg pressed him to apply that question to the governor’s proposal, too.

“What would be suspicious to a National Guard member in the state of Washington?” Greg asked.

Spike responded that he understood the state’s offer as a way to protect voters from interference, rather than investigate the voters themselves.

“I think the National Guard support by this, the state administration, the Ferguson administration, is being offered to make sure that voters have an unimpeded, unintimidated entrance and exit from the polls,” Spike said.

Security measures bring their own unease

For Spike, the prospect of competing groups watching voting locations raised another concern: whether an effort presented as protecting elections could make casting a ballot feel intimidating.

He asked listeners to imagine people lining both sides of a street and watching voters enter. The image reminded him of Ruby Bridges being escorted into school, and he invoked artist Norman Rockwell while describing his unease.

Greg’s concern was less about rejecting security than recognizing what its necessity meant. He considered the governor’s offer warranted, while questioning whether people would judge comparable measures differently depending on which party supported them.

The discussion ended with Spike asking listeners whether they expected the election to proceed normally or bring disruption.

“Is there going to be smooth sailing?” Spike asked. “Is there going to be business as usual? Is there going to be total mayhem and chaos?”

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Listen to “The Jake and Spike Show” weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. on KIRO Newsradio 97.3