A Sequim resident was recently told she had to choose: participate in Indivisible Sequim or read CC Watchdog. She could not do both. That ultimatum exposes more than the behavior of a single activist group—it reveals how the League of Women Voters, long trusted as a neutral steward of voter education, has become entangled with ideological enforcement while retaining privileged access to public institutions.
The Ultimatum That Says the Quiet Part Out Loud
Hope Williams did not violate a rule.
She did not harass anyone.
She did not spread misinformation.
Her offense was reading CC Watchdog.
Williams wrote that members of Indivisible Sequim confronted her and demanded she choose between remaining active in their group or reading Jeff Tozzer’s column. She declined—pointing out that both Indivisible Sequim and CC Watchdog exist because of the same constitutional protections of free speech and free press.
She also reported what many locals have quietly observed: Indivisible Sequim gatekeeps participation in its Facebook group, deciding which viewpoints are acceptable and which are not.
This is not inclusion.
It is ideological enforcement.
Indivisible Sequim’s Stated Values vs. Its Actual Practices
Indivisible Sequim’s “About Us” page promises:
A real democracy
Openness and inclusivity
Protection of individual liberties
Respect for civic engagement
Yet in practice, participation appears conditional on:
Which news sources you read
Which beliefs you hold
Which candidates you support
That contradiction matters—but it becomes far more serious when a self-described nonpartisan civic institution chooses to align with and promote it.
When Belief Becomes Disqualifying
Last fall, Indivisible Sequim released a voter guide with endorsements aligned with local Democratic organizations.
One endorsement crossed a line.
In supporting hospital commissioner candidate Gerald Stephanz, the group attacked his opponent, Ann Marie Henninger, not on experience or competence—but because she “holds classic Catholic pro-life convictions.”
This is not a policy critique.
This is a belief-based exclusion.
If a candidate were dismissed for having “typical Jewish beliefs” or “expected Muslim views,” the public reaction would be swift and justified.
Calling it what it is matters. This practice fits well-understood categories:
Religious-based political opposition
Ideological discrimination in political advocacy
Faith-linked belief exclusion
It may be lawful.
It is still discrimination.
Who Enforces the Line
Indivisible Sequim’s website lists no local leadership. But insiders identify who enforces ideological compliance online.
The Facebook group—where the ultimatum to Hope Williams occurred—is moderated by former Charter Review Commissioners Jim Stoffer and Alex Fane, among others.
This is not a random volunteer activity. It is organized political gatekeeping by individuals with recent roles in county governance.
The Missing Piece: The League of Women Voters’ Active Partnership
Here is the link that cannot be waved away.
The League of Women Voters is not a distant observer of Indivisible Sequim. It is an active partner. Here’s the proof:
1) Physical Presence = Endorsement
The League regularly:
Hosts tables at Indivisible Sequim rallies
Marches alongside Indivisible activists with LWV branding
Displays LWV signage at Indivisible events
Organizations do not deploy branded booths and volunteers to events they do not support. Physical presence is endorsement.
2) Cross-Promotion = Amplification
The League has:
Advertised Indivisible Sequim protests and events
Directed its audience to Indivisible activities
Treated Indivisible as a trusted civic partner
“Upcoming Events: Workers over Billionaires Rally. Join Indivisible Sequim on Labor Day…”
That is not neutral voter education. It is message amplification.
3) Shared Endorsement Space
Indivisible’s voter guide explicitly referenced endorsements aligned with organizations, including the League. When Indivisible attacked a candidate for holding Catholic beliefs, that attack occurred within an endorsement ecosystem the League helped legitimize.
The League cannot plausibly claim neutrality while its credibility sits adjacent to belief-based exclusion.
Why the League’s Role Is Different—and More Serious
Unlike Indivisible Sequim, the League of Women Voters enjoys special standing:
Listed by Clallam County as a voter resource
Treated as a nonpartisan point of contact for unaffiliated voters
Permitted to distribute literature in public buildings, including the courthouse
That status exists because the League claims neutrality.
You do not get to:
Act like a partisan activist and
Be treated like a neutral civic referee
Those roles are mutually exclusive.
When a government-adjacent institution actively supports a group that polices thought and applies religious litmus tests, it is misusing institutional trust.
By Association, the League Owns the Conduct
Indivisible Sequim can say it is an activist group. Activists are allowed to be partisan, exclusionary, and ideological.
The League of Women Voters cannot hide behind that excuse.
By:
Showing up
Promoting events
Sharing platforms
Lending its respected name
…the League is endorsing Indivisible’s conduct—including viewpoint exclusion and belief-based discrimination.
That makes the League complicit.
CC Watchdog’s Standard: Transparency Without Permission Slips
CC Watchdog has one guiding principle: transparency.
No loyalty tests.
No approved reading lists.
No ideological gatekeeping.
Groups that attack CC Watchdog for asking questions are not defending democracy—they are defending control. And control is always threatened by transparency.
A Necessary Course Correction
The League of Women Voters once played a vital role in voter education. Locally, it has drifted—hard—into ideological activism while retaining privileges meant for neutral institutions.
That should concern everyone, regardless of party.
Public buildings are not activist clubhouses.
Voter resources should not favor exclusionary groups.
Democracy does not require ideological obedience.
What You Can Do
Email the County Commissioners and ask why activist organizations are permitted to distribute materials in public buildings. All three commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.
Contact the County Auditor and request the removal of the League of Women Voters from official voter-resource listings Elections@ClallamCountyWA.gov.
Contact Sound Community Bank and ask why it supports an organization engaged in belief-based exclusion and ideological enforcement by emailing the regional Relationship Manager shelli.robb-kahler@soundcb.com.
Speak up publicly—silence is the gatekeeper’s best ally
Democracy does not require conformity.
Free thought does not need permission.
And institutions that abandon neutrality should not retain public trust.
If the League of Women Voters wants to act like an activist organization, it should be treated like one—not sheltered as a neutral referee.
CC Watchdog will keep asking the questions others would rather you stop reading.
