League of Women Voters at the Center of CCD Election Controversy
As confusion surrounds the Conservation District’s ballot process, questions grow about the League’s role, neutrality, and silence
The Clallam Conservation District’s 2026 supervisor election is underway — but many voters never knew it started. Ballots had to be requested before candidate statements were posted. Postcards went to past voters, not all registered voters. Conflicting messages about who would automatically receive a ballot have added confusion. Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters is helping process ballots in a race where activist allies endorsed the incumbent. After a court invalidated the last CCD election, residents are again asking whether transparency and fairness are being treated as priorities — or afterthoughts.
Clallam County’s most confusing election is back.
The Clallam Conservation District (CCD) is holding its annual supervisor election — a three-year position overseeing a taxpayer-funded agency that recently secured $2 million in county funding over the next decade.
This year’s election is entirely mail-in. But unlike the county’s regular elections, voters had to request a ballot in advance — before most residents knew who was running.
March 17 is Election Day. But if you didn’t request a ballot, you’re out of luck.
Candidate statements were posted very near — and possibly immediately after — the filing deadline, leaving little time for voters to review positions before ballot request deadlines.
In practical terms, voters were asked to commit to participating in a race before knowing who was running.
The $900 Postcard
CCD sent a postcard to select individuals, reminding them to request a ballot. The cost: just over $900.
Who received it?
According to District Manager Kim Williams, the mailing went to people who had participated in past CCD elections and those already on a CCD mailing list.
That raises obvious questions.
If the goal is broader participation, why send reminders primarily to prior voters rather than the roughly 65,000 registered voters in Clallam County?
If prior participants automatically receive ballots in some cases, why the extra mailing expense?
And if this is about expanding access, why not simply mail ballots to all eligible voters?
CCD has explained that conservation district elections are governed by Chapter 89.08 RCW and Washington Administrative Code 135.110. They are exempt from Title 29A — the election laws that govern standard county and state races. Elections occur annually in the first quarter and are overseen by the Washington State Conservation Commission.
In other words, this is a different system.
But different does not automatically mean clearer.
Conflicting Messages
An email exchange between a voter and incumbent WendyRae Johnson illustrates the confusion.
Johnson wrote:
“We want every person who voted in the past and anyone on our mailing list to have the opportunity to vote.”
That phrasing appears to prioritize prior voters and those already connected to CCD communications.
Another dispute centered on whether voters who cast ballots last year were assured they would automatically receive one this year. Johnson later clarified that only those who had checked a specific “annual ballot” request box would automatically receive a ballot — though many voters understandably do not remember which box they checked years ago.
The result is uncertainty.
When election rules are unclear — especially after the previous CCD election was thrown out over improper procedures — confidence suffers.
Sloppy Records?
The postcard recipient list apparently included the late John Brewer, longtime publisher of the Peninsula Daily News, who passed away in April 2024.
Whether the mailing list simply lagged behind obituary updates or reflects deeper record-keeping issues, the optics are difficult.
If reminders are reaching deceased residents, voters reasonably wonder how current the ballot databases are.
Election Reform — Or Politics?
In response to concerns, District Manager Kim Williams wrote:
“We are asking that you and others stand with the CCD in election reform. Clallam Conservation District is committed to pursuing election reform with the Washington State Legislature and making future elections more accessible to all voters. If you would like this election on the regular fall ballot, please contact your legislator at 1-800-562-6000.”
Moving conservation district elections onto the regular fall ballot would require a change in state law.
Yet public records show Williams testified in opposition to House Bill 2499 — legislation related to conservation district election processes.
So which is it?
If the district is committed to reform and broader accessibility, why oppose legislative efforts tied to election changes?
That contradiction deserves explanation.
The League’s Role
Ballot processing assistance in this race is being provided by the League of Women Voters of Clallam County.
The League has publicly campaigned against federal voter ID proposals, warning of barriers to participation and voter suppression. They argue that voting should be as accessible as possible.
At the same time, Indivisible Sequim — an activist group that organizes alongside the League — endorsed incumbent Wendy Rae Johnson, instructing supporters to vote for her.
No policy comparison. No mention of her opponent. Just a directive.
So the activist group, backed by the League of Women Voters, endorses a candidate.
The League, publicly described as nonpartisan, helps process ballots in the same race.
Even if entirely lawful, perception matters.
Trust matters.
If voter access is sacred at the federal level, why is a ballot-request system before knowing who is running accepted locally?
If election integrity is nonnegotiable in Washington, D.C., why the relative quiet from the LWV when confusion and litigation arise in Clallam County?
The Pattern
The CCD’s previous election was invalidated due to improper procedures.
This year’s election features:
Ballot requests required in advance
Candidate statements posted after filing deadlines
Postcards mailed to select lists
Conflicting public explanations
A reform narrative that clashes with legislative testimony
None of this proves wrongdoing.
But it does prove something else:
The system is not intuitive.
The messaging has not been consistent.
And confidence has not been strengthened.
Questions for the League
Last week’s questions to the League of Women Voters about whether their messaging amplifies fear within the gay community for political effect remain unanswered.
This week, additional questions:
How does the League define “nonpartisan” when affiliated activist groups openly endorse candidates in elections the League helps administer?
Did the League advocate mailing ballots to all eligible voters in this race?
Does requiring ballot requests before candidate information expand or limit access?
How does the League reconcile its national rhetoric about voter barriers with this local structure?
If you are a League supporter or critic, you can contact them directly at info@lwvcla.org.
CC Watchdog will continue posing respectful, direct questions each Friday and will publish any responses in full.
Transparency builds trust.
Silence erodes it.
We’ll be back next week.
Are you subscribed to the Clallamity Jen Substack?
If you aren’t, here’s a sample of what you’re missing. It’s free.
That’s so League of Women Voters:
While the League of Women Voters of Clallam County is concerned about losing a hypothetical voter base due to potential legislation that requires proof of citizenship, they appear to have no interest in the lackluster turnout for the 2025 general election in Clallam County where less than half of registered voters participated.
Total Ballots Cast: 28203, Registered Voters: 59529, Overall Turnout: 47.38% (Source)
When it comes to restricting access or making ‘voting harder’ maybe the League should have a talk with the Clallam Conservation District about why they make voting for a supervisor ‘harder’ than in a regular election, and whether or not it restricts access by not alerting all residents in Clallam County about the election; as well as what the CCD did that resulted in a Superior Court voiding their previous election results.
County Commissioner Randy Johnson and Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove did not answer yesterday's question about the 435 acres of DNR land being considered for transfer to the Jamestown Corporation. Here is today's question emailed to the LWV:
Dear League of Women Voters of Clallam County,
Clallam County Watchdog has raised several questions about your role in the Conservation District election, including how nonpartisanship is defined in this situation, whether the League supported broader ballot access, and how candidate information timing aligns with voter access. We’d welcome your response and will publish it in full so readers can hear directly from you.
Doug caught the typo. I'm not sure what the "gayo" community is, but it's been corrected.