For the first time, the Clallam Conservation District (CCD) will conduct its supervisor election entirely by mail, with no in-person voting. This follows a Superior Court ruling that voided the District’s 2024 election and comes shortly after County Commissioners approved a decade-long parcel fee projected to transfer roughly $2 million from local property owners to the agency—without a public vote. Now, concerns are surfacing about early campaigning, insider communications, ballot handling procedures, confusing voter outreach, and the role of League of Women Voters volunteers. When a public agency exercises taxing authority and administers its own elections, transparency must be unmistakable.
A First: All-Mail, No Poll Site
The March 17, 2026 CCD supervisor election will be conducted exclusively by mail or official drop box. There will be no in-person voting location.
Eventhough the public doesn’t know who the candidates are, ballots must be requested directly from the District—not through the County Auditor—by February 18 at 4:00 p.m. Ballots are due by 4:00 p.m. on Election Day.
CCD Director Kim Williams has stated that:
Ballots are issued only upon request
Verification is conducted against the County’s registered voter file
Processing and tabulation occur with two-person accountability
Public viewing is permitted
However, observers are reportedly required to watch ballot processing from outside the conference room, rather than from inside, as is permitted during Clallam County–administered elections. In the prior election cycle, individuals who attempted to observe from within the room—similar to the standard practice allowed at the County—were asked to leave.
After a court voided the 2024 CCD election for procedural violations—including unauthorized hybrid voting methods—scrutiny of this year’s procedures is reasonable.
Confusing Mailers and a Clunky Ballot Request System
In recent weeks, several residents report receiving half-page mailings from CCD urging them to request a ballot.
For many recipients, the mailing created confusion. Some residents believed they had already requested a ballot previously and were unsure whether they needed to do so again. Others assumed ballots would be mailed automatically—as is standard practice in Washington State elections conducted by the County Auditor.
Because this election requires an affirmative ballot request, the process differs significantly from typical county elections.
Adding to the confusion, residents report that the online ballot request portal is difficult to navigate. Users must scroll through extensive drop-down menus—reportedly including hundreds of date-of-birth options—before completing their request.
For voters accustomed to streamlined county election systems, the experience has been described as cumbersome and unintuitive.
Clarity and user-friendly access are especially important when the agency itself issues ballots.
Campaigning Before Filing Closed
On January 31—nine days before the February 9 filing deadline—an email went out through the Indivisible Port Angeles mailing list encouraging voters to request ballots and “re-elect” incumbent Supervisor Wendy Rae Johnson.
There is nothing inherently improper about campaigning before filing closes. Candidates often signal their intent early. The issue here is different.
When a sitting supervisor—who serves within the same agency administering the election—uses an activist mailing list to promote re-election before the candidate field is finalized, it raises reasonable questions about equal access and perception. Were other potential candidates equally positioned to communicate through similar networks? Was the broader public informed with the same clarity?
Complicating the optics further, Indivisible Port Angeles is an activist organization that has publicly taken positions on local and national political issues. When an incumbent relies on that network for campaign messaging and volunteers affiliated with aligned civic groups participate in the election process, even the appearance of an insider advantage can undermine confidence.
Whether legally permissible or not, elections depend not only on compliance—but on public trust.
That concern is amplified by comments made at the December 9, 2025 CCD Board meeting. During that meeting, Johnson volunteered to hand out ballots in person at the CCD’s offices and suggested making the ballot available online so that anyone could print and distribute copies. Both ideas raised eyebrows. In most election settings, ballot control and chain-of-custody procedures are tightly managed to prevent duplication, confusion, or improper distribution. While no action was taken on those suggestions, the remarks added to broader concerns about how seriously election safeguards are being treated.
Johnson’s Auditor Role and the Funding Questions
Wendy Rae Johnson has served as Auditor of the Clallam Conservation District board for the past two years, while also now seeking re-election as supervisor. That role carries heightened responsibility, particularly since the District pushed for a guaranteed parcel fee funding stream approved by the County Commissioners.
During that campaign, CCD presented financial projections to justify the new revenue. Concerns were raised that some calculations were off by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There were other instances where figures appeared to show surpluses while the public message emphasized financial strain.
After the fee passed, scrutiny increased as compensation and staffing costs became clearer through subsequent public documents.
As both the board’s auditor and a candidate, Johnson’s financial stewardship is directly relevant to voters evaluating transparency and accuracy ahead of the March 17 election.
The League of Women Voters’ Role
CCD states that it administers the election under Chapter 89.08 RCW and WAC 135-110. However, members of the League of Women Voters will serve as volunteer election officers.
CCD emphasizes that these individuals act as independent volunteers under the Election Supervisor’s direction.
That distinction matters.
So does perception.
The League says it’s nonpartisan and doesn’t support or oppose candidates or parties. At the same time, it has paid for ads in the local paper criticizing national political figures and has shown up at rallies that clearly lean one direction. That’s their right—any group can take political positions. But it’s hard to square those actions with a claim of strict neutrality. In a county that regularly swings either way politically, that kind of mixed message can cost credibility and leave a lot of voters wondering whether the “nonpartisan” label still fits.
Reasonable observers may differ on the League’s advocacy positions. The issue here is narrower: whether volunteers drawn from an organization publicly engaged in political advocacy are the best choice to help administer a contested local election—particularly after a prior election was voided.
If CCD seeks maximum public confidence, alternatives such as independent election services or bipartisan volunteer representation could be considered.
The objective is credibility.
The Conflict Question
The League of Women Voters says it’s nonpartisan. But locally, it has openly aligned itself with Indivisible — a group that is not a neutral civic club, but an activist organization with clear political leanings.
Indivisible has published partisan voter guides, criticized candidates over their religious beliefs, restricted participation in its forums based on what members read, and encouraged boycotts of local small businesses that don’t share its political positions. That’s their right. Activist groups can advocate. But let’s call it what it is.
Wendy Rae Johnson has used the Indivisible email network to promote her candidacy and has appeared at Indivisible-organized events. So the same network promoting her re-election is one that the League publicly supports and partners with.
That’s where the concern comes in.
If League volunteers are helping administer an election in which a candidate is being promoted through an activist network the League actively associates with, it creates an appearance problem. Even if every volunteer behaves professionally, elections run on trust. After a court voided the last CCD election, the standard should be higher than “technically allowed.” It should be unquestionably neutral.
That’s not a partisan argument. It’s a credibility one.
It’s also worth remembering recent local history. Susan Fisch ran for the 2025 Charter Review Commission while serving as Secretary of the League of Women Voters and campaigned using that affiliation. After being elected and later serving as chair, her leadership style became a point of controversy. Several commissioners and members of the public complained that dissenting viewpoints were cut short or treated dismissively. Others objected to statements she made about voter initiatives she opposed, arguing they were inaccurate or misleading. There were also concerns about her refusal to meaningfully engage with commissioners who disagreed with her, which some felt effectively sidelined entire districts of constituents.
Regardless of where someone stood on the issues, the episode left many residents questioning whether the League’s local leadership functions as a neutral civic resource or as an ideological actor. That perception inevitably carries over when League volunteers are involved in administering an election.
This Election Is the Moment
CCD states that ballots are secured upon receipt, seal numbers are logged, and signatures are checked against the county voter file. Those are baseline safeguards. But drop-box ballots require no postmark, and observers reportedly must watch the counting from outside the room. After a Superior Court voided the last Conservation District election, the standard should not be minimal compliance — it should be unmistakable transparency.
This is bigger than a routine board seat. The Conservation District now operates with guaranteed parcel-fee revenue, county contracts, and administrative control over its own elections. When an agency funded by mandatory fees oversees its own vote — and relies on volunteers affiliated with politically active organizations — public confidence must be earned.
If you are a registered voter in Clallam County, you must request your ballot if you have not already done so. Ballots are not mailed automatically. You must request one directly from the Conservation District before the deadline. If turnout is low, decisions will be made by a narrow slice of the electorate. Engagement is the only antidote.
If you believe this election should be administered with broader neutrality, email the Conservation District at info@clallamcd.org and respectfully request that this and future elections be conducted through Clallam County Elections, an independent professional election firm, or with an equal number of trained volunteers from local Democratic and Republican organizations to ensure balanced oversight. Public agencies funded by taxpayers should avoid even the appearance of partisan alignment.
Participation matters. Transparency matters. After a voided election and growing controversy, trust will not be restored quietly. It will be restored when voters show up, request their ballots, and insist on fair, neutral administration.
