Two appointed Seattle Public Schools board members appear to be advancing to the general election to keep their seats after Tuesday’s primary, though one is currently in second place.

Seattle voters saw three school board races on the primary ballot. The top two candidates with the most votes in each race in Tuesday’s primary will face each other in the general election in November.

In District 2, incumbent Director Sarah Clark, director of policy for the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, who was appointed last year to fill a vacancy, was in second place with 43.10% of the vote; challenger Kathleen Smith, a data scientist at Microsoft, had 45.92% of votes. They led a third candidate, Eric Feeny. District 2 includes the area from Magnolia Interbay to Loyal Heights to Green Lake.

For District 4, incumbent Director Joe Mizrahi, secretary/treasurer of UFCW 3000, had 68.57% of the vote. Mizrahi was also appointed last year to fill a vacancy. In second place was challenger Laura Marie Rivera with 17.84%. They topped a field of five candidates. District 4 includes the area from Downtown up through Queen Anne to Fremont.

For District 5, an open race after incumbent Director Michelle Sarju said she would not run for her seat, former school board Director Vivian Song received 73.25% of the vote. Song had represented District 4 when she was first elected in 2021 but resigned after news reports that she moved to District 5. In second place was Janis White, the founder of an advocacy organization for youth with disabilities, with 15.73% of the votes. They led the field of six candidates on the ballot. District 5 includes Capitol Hill, Chinatown International District, First Hill, Leschi, Madison and the Central District.

In November, voters will also see a race for District 7, which represents Beacon Hill, Columbia City, Mount Baker, Seward Park and Rainier Beach. Carol Rava and Jen LaVallee advanced to the general because they were the only two candidates who filed for the open seat, currently held by School Board Director Brandon Hersey.

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office has declined to criminally investigate a Vancouver-based company that, state officials concluded, had violated youth labor laws, resulting in the permanent disability of a teenage employee in 2023.

The sheriff’s office cited a lack of victim and witness cooperation as the reason for not investigating, according to a June 11 letter.

A 16-year-old worker, participating in a school work-for-credit program at Rotschy Inc. in June 2023, had been digging a trench using a machine that state law prohibits minors from operating. When the trench collapsed, his legs were pulled into the machine and they were both amputated. The company faced $208,0259 in fines for safety and youth labor violations.

The injured worker was kept on Rotschy’s payroll throughout his recovery and eventually returned to work in the construction company’s office. He and his family have said they do not blame Rotschy for his severe injuries, calling what happened an accident. 

Earlier this year, the Department of Labor & Industries asked the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to prosecute Rotschy on criminal charges. It was the first time the state’s workplace-safety enforcement agency pursued felony charges over a youth labor violation. The prosecutor’s office sent the referral to the Special Victims Unit at the sheriff’s office for further investigation. 

“Having reviewed the records, I found there was a factual basis for the allegation that a felony crime had occurred in this case; however, further investigation would be required,” a Clark County detective sergeant wrote in the June 11 letter.

‘Beyond failure’: WA teen loses legs at school-based work program

Thousands of students enroll in work-for-credit programs, but a 16-year-old’s case shows life-altering consequences of risky jobs and murky oversight.

Cascade PBSLizz Giordano

The letter went on to say the detective had contacted the injured worker and his family, and that they had declined to participate in a criminal investigation. 

“I respect the right of citizens to decline to participate in criminal investigations and/or assist in criminal prosecutions,” the letter stated. “As such, I have declined to assign this referral for a criminal investigation.” 

Erik Podhora, the senior deputy prosecuting attorney with Clark County assigned to the case, told Cascade PBS the prosecutor’s office is still reviewing the case.

A longer version of this article originally appeared in The News Tribune.

The plan to build a tiny-home village for the homeless in Spanaway can move forward following the Pierce County Council’s vote to amend zoning codes that were obstructing the project.

The director of the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), Sharon Lee, told The News Tribune that the village at 415 208th St. E. will have 40 to 50 homes. She said the homes will be eight feet by 12 feet, insulated, with heat, air conditioning and furnishings.

A hygiene trailer, community kitchen, community space, laundry room and case-management offices will be on site. There will be a fully fenced perimeter, security check-in office and 24/7 staffing, according to Lee.

LIHI operates several tiny-home villages in the Puget Sound region, including two in Tacoma. LIHI has owned for some time the land where the village will be, but county code prohibiting temporary housing shelters from being built and operated in unincorporated Pierce County for more than 90 days was an obstacle.

Last summer, now-Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello spearheaded an effort as the chair of the County Council to amend county code to allow for the Spanaway tiny-home village and others like it to be established outside of Tacoma. Mello and his Democrat colleagues supported the effort to change the code in two separate ordinances that were opposed by Republicans on the Council and former Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeier, a Republican.

In June, the Council passed an ordinance amending the county zoning code and allowing temporary housing projects to exist for longer than 90 days. The ordinance passed along party lines by a vote of four to three and took effect at the beginning of July.

According to LIHI, the property where the village will be built cost $1.55 million, and the village will cost $1.5 million to set up and $1.2 million annually to operate. Lee told The News Tribune that LIHI anticipates opening the village by spring 2026.

LIHI’s tiny-home villages serve as temporary housing for those experiencing homelessness to get back on their feet while looking for permanent housing. According to LIHI, more than half of tiny-home residents stay in villages for less than six months before transitioning.

The News Tribune originally published a longer version of this article on Aug. 1, 2025. Cascade PBS has edited this story for length.

After three years of bargaining, outdoor retailer REI Co-op and the two unions representing some REI workers announced an agreement that could bring them closer to an initial contract at unionized stores.   

In a joint press release Friday, REI, based in Issaquah, and the union bargaining committee said they had agreed to establish a “national bargaining structure to inform store-level collective bargaining agreements” for its 11 unionized stores, including one in Bellingham. 

“This agreement is a tremendous step forward in negotiating a first contract,” the REI Union bargaining committee said in a statement. 

Since 2022, workers at 11 REI stores have been affiliated with either the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)​ or the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which work together as the REI Union. The union cites issues with wages, staffing and unpredictable hours. Unionized workers have accused REI of bargaining in bad faith and dragging its feet, a claim the company denies. Friday’s announcement comes after three years of contentious negotiations between the co-op and the REI Union. 

In March, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against REI alleging that the company had broken the law by withholding wages and bonuses to workers at unionized stores in retaliation for organizing activity. 

The company denied the claim. A hearing in the case was scheduled for later this year, but as part of the new agreement reached Friday, REI said it will pay wage increases and bonuses to the workers at unionized stores who didn’t receive them. In exchange, the REI Union said it would drop the unfair labor practice charges it had filed with the NLRB over the matter. 

“This agreement reflects both sides’ commitment to finding solutions to complex issues and clears the way for continued good faith discussions towards a collective bargaining agreement,” REI said in a statement. 

This spring, the REI Union successfully urged co-op members to reject the board of director candidates put forward by REI in protest of the company’s approach to labor issues. REI has yet to announce who will be appointed to the board in place of its handpicked candidates. 

A longer version of this article appeared in The Columbian and The Daily News.

The Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Program recently cleared another bureaucratic funding hurdle when Metro, Portland, Oregon’s regional governing body, voted to spend $1.9 billion in funding that had already been awarded to the project.

The vote moves the roughly $6 billion project forward even as questions remain about whether a megaproject bridging two blue states can succeed under President Donald Trump. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has raised alarms about Trump’s administration pulling funding for projects in Democratic-leaning states.

The $1.9 billion approved by Metro on July 24 comes from the federal government, as well as Washington and Oregon. While the money has already been allocated to the project, planners need another layer of procedural approval before it can actually be spent.

The project had already secured a similar approval from the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, which rubber-stamped it July 1. It still needs the State of Oregon’s approval. (Washington doesn’t require an equivalent approval at the state level.)

“Once we have federal environmental approval, the [bridge replacement] program can begin construction and turn dirt on this key transportation investment,” said Ray Mabey, second in command at the project.

The project to replace the 108-year-old bridge is currently funded with $2.1 billion from the federal government, $1 billion each from Washington and Oregon, and $1.2 billion from future tolls. Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a bill in May that allows the state to issue $2.5 billion in state bonds to pay for part of the bridge replacement project before tolls make up that cost.

While tolls were initially expected as soon as next spring, project managers now say the fees likely won’t start until summer 2027. Those will be on the existing bridge.

The project expects construction to start in early 2026 after federal environmental review approvals, Mabey said.

The Columbian and The Daily News published a longer version of this article on July 30, 2025. Cascade PBS has edited this article for length.

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced Friday that it will be shutting down.

The announcement came just one day after a major Senate appropriations bill omitted funding for the nonprofit that funds public media and a week after President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that yanked $1.1 billion in previously approved spending for CPB. 

CPB, which Congress authorized in 1967, provides funds for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations across the United States. President Donald Trump and fellow Republicans have criticized NPR and PBS of left-leaning bias, an accusation the public media organizations have rejected.

“Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,” Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, said in a statement Friday.

“CPB remains committed to fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care,” Harrison said.

She added that “public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country.”

CPB said employees were notified Friday that the majority of staff positions “will conclude with the close of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025,” and a small transition team will stay through January 2026.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026, which did not include any CPB funding.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the panel, expressed her disappointment over the lack of a CPB allocation in the bill during a committee markup. 

“It is a shameful reality and now communities across the country will suffer the consequences as over 1,500 stations lose critical funding,” Murray said.

In a win for the Trump administration, Congress passed a rescissions package in July that clawed back $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, including $1.1 billion for CPB.

Trump signed the measure into law just days later. 

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on August 1, 2025.

Washington has signed onto a lawsuit against the Trump administration over funding cuts targeting Planned Parenthood, Attorney General Nick Brown announced Tuesday.

The “Big Beautiful Bill” spending plan passed by Congress earlier this month bans Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood for the next year, meaning clinics cannot be reimbursed for providing medical services to low-income patients insured under the federal health care program.

Washington is one of 24 states suing the administration over the provision.

“The broad attempt to cut Washingtonians’ access to Planned Parenthood means more unscreened cancers, more untreated sexually transmitted diseases, and more unintended pregnancies,” Brown said in a statement. “The Trump Administration’s punitive actions will have real ramifications for Washingtonians.”

Gov. Bob Ferguson has already committed to backfilling the loss of federal funding to the 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington. That’s about $11.8 million over the next year.

In a press conference earlier this month, Ferguson said he would divert some funding from the state Health Care Authority to fill the gap.

The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts and asserts that the budget provision is unconstitutional because it is ambiguous and violates congressional spending authority.

The provision “does not reflect a health policy choice but was drafted to single out [Planned Parenthood Federation of America] and Planned Parenthood health centers for their abortion advocacy,” the lawsuit reads.

Planned Parenthood has filed its own lawsuit over the funding provision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A federal judge blocked the funding provision from going into effect earlier this week, but the case is ongoing.

Along with Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin have all signed onto the lawsuit.

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

Parents trying to overturn a Washington law protecting runaway transgender youth have hit another roadblock in federal court.

A three-judge appeals court panel on Friday unanimously dismissed a constitutional challenge to the controversial 2023 statute, which allows operators of emergency shelters to notify state authorities, rather than parents, when children seek refuge as they pursue gender-affirming care and support services.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a lower court ruling that concluded those challenging the law lacked legal standing to sue because they could not prove they suffered actual or imminent harm from the statute. The plaintiffs who brought the case included several parents whose teenage children exhibited signs of gender dysphoria, but were not runaways, and two nonprofits that oppose gender-affirming care for children.

In a statement, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown’s office said, “We are pleased that the court saw through this politicized attempt to create a case where none existed.”

America First Legal Foundation, counsel for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The conservative legal organization was founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for President Donald Trump.

State law calls for parents to be notified within 72 hours of their child’s arrival at an emergency shelter unless there are “compelling reasons” not to do so. If there are signs of abuse or neglect, for example, shelter staff are to inform the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, which would take the lead on reaching out to parents.

The court fight is over Senate Bill 5599, which expanded the list of compelling reasons to cover situations in which a young person feels they could be subject to abuse or neglect because they are pursuing gender-affirming care or reproductive health services. The law’s passage incensed conservatives, who said it was an attack on parental rights.

America First Legal Foundation sued in August 2023, days after opponents of the law failed to gather enough signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

The lawsuit argued the statute “deprives certain parents — but not all parents —  of their fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the care and upbringing of their children, as well as their rights to the free exercise of religion, due process, free speech, and equal protection.” 

Miller, in a statement issued at the time the suit was filed, said his group was “leading the courtroom charge against radical transgenderism and the sexual exploitation of our children by militant gender activists.” He added: “No state action more frighteningly illustrates the threat to our children than this law.”

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. and Advocates Protecting Children joined the parents as plaintiffs.

After the state responded that the plaintiffs lacked standing, America First Legal amended its complaint to broaden the original challenge. That didn’t work.

In May 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Bryan dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

The 9th Circuit Court panel of judges agreed. Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., a 2006 appointee of President George W. Bush, authored Friday’s appellate decision. Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas and Daniel A. Bress joined in the opinion.

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on July 28, 2025.

A longer version of this article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

A controversial plan to kill up to half a million invasive barred owls to protect endangered spotted owls is in jeopardy after the Trump administration terminated three critical grants funding the program. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s barred owl management strategy was approved last September. 

The plan, set to start this year and continue for three decades, called for the lethal removal of barred owls in Washington, Oregon and California by shooting them with shotguns or, less frequently, capturing and euthanizing them. 

Barred owls and spotted owls prefer the same habitat and compete for the same food. But the barred owl is larger and more aggressive, and typically prevails in conflicts with the spotted owl.

Julia Smith, endangered species recovery section manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the state Fish and Wildlife Commission last week that the northern spotted owl will be functionally extinct in Washington within the next decade if no new action is taken. 

“There’s no easy button to recover this bird, and we’re left with only the most difficult options,” Smith said. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said its plan to shoot barred owls would result in the annual removal of less than one-half of 1% of the species’ North American population.

Animal rights activists and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have publicly opposed the plan, calling it costly, unsustainable and inhumane. 

Now the Trump administration has canceled $1.1 million in grants to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to enact the program, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. 

The grant cancellation is the first public indication of the administration’s stance on the plan. 

Washington is home to the endangered northern spotted owl, which was designated as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act nearly 25 years ago.

In the Pacific Northwest, spotted owls are known for their central role in the “timber wars” of the 1980s and 1990s, which pitted environmentalists concerned about saving old-growth trees against loggers. 

This conflict eventually led to the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, which put new protections in place for forests where the spotted owl lives.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that the rate of spotted owl population decline showed signs of improvement until about 2008, but accelerated soon after, and that the downturn coincided with the expansion of barred owls into spotted owls’ territory. 

Smith, with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said modeling of what would happen if barred owls were no longer present in Washington showed the spotted owl population growing steadily for the next 15 years and stabilizing in 30 to 40 years.  

The Washington State Standard originally published a longer version of this story on July 22, 2025. Cascade PBS has edited this story for length.

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday agreed with a Seattle judge’s decision to universally block President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The appeals judges ruled 2-1 that Trump’s order, issued on Inauguration Day, violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

“One power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution,” Judge Ronald Gould, a Clinton appointee, wrote in his opinion.

Gould’s opinion, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, sides with U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, who stopped Trump’s order with an indefinite preliminary injunction in February. Such orders block enforcement while the case proceeds through the courts.

Coughenour called Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The lawsuit was brought by Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Illinois and two pregnant noncitizen women who feared their children could be born without citizenship in any country.

In a statement, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown applauded the appeals court ruling.

“The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,” Brown said. “He cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country.”

The decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adds to the list of courts that have found Trump’s move unconstitutional and blocked enforcement of it. The ruling comes after the Department of Justice and Washington attorney general’s office argued the case in early June.

Since those arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court decided judges like Coughenour had overstepped their authority in blocking Trump’s order nationwide. The justices ruled nationwide injunctions should be limited to when necessary to “provide complete relief to each plaintiff.”

The high court’s decision left the door open for creating a checkerboard of states where birthright citizenship remained and others where it didn’t.

The justices didn’t take up the merits of Trump’s order.

Wednesday’s ruling is the second to confirm a complete block is necessary since the Supreme Court decision, after a New Hampshire federal judge certified a nationwide class action suit. 

The Trump administration looks to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as only covering people whose primary allegiance is to the United States. So people born to parents only here temporarily or without legal status wouldn’t qualify for citizenship at birth.  

In 2022, about 153,000 babies across the country were born to two parents without legal immigration status, including 4,000 in Washington, according to the plaintiffs. The states have said they stand to lose federal funding through programs like Medicaid that otherwise could help these children if they were citizens.

Gould found this argument persuasive, justifying “complete relief” to block the order nationwide. He wrote that Trump’s birthright citizenship order would require states to overhaul their eligibility verification systems for social service programs.

“The preliminary injunction here merely prevents the Executive Branch from denying citizenship to individuals who are likely constitutionally entitled to citizenship,” Gould wrote. “Because, as the district court correctly concluded, the Executive Branch does not have a legitimate interest in violating the Constitution, the Executive Branch has not shown that either the public interest or the balance of equities tips in its favor.”

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, disagreed, arguing the states lack standing to bring litigation over the order because their financial loss would be a “self-inflicted injury” if they choose to provide benefits to immigrants without legal status.

In his dissent, Bumatay didn’t address the issue of the injunction’s scope.

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on July 23, 2025.