The League of Women Voters spent September saying Jake Seegers and Virginia Shogren would not show up. The emails show both were willing to face voters. What they refused was the League’s control of the format, control of the recording, and control of the story.
On September 6, the League of Women Voters of the United States told voters that trusted information is “the ultimate form of inoculation against disinformation,” and offered itself as the trusted messenger.
The same week, the Clallam chapter and its political neighbors were already spreading their own misinformation: the candidates bailed.
The rumor was a campaign ad
A post on Indivislbe — a partisan group that the local League promotes — said Seegers “bailed” on the September 28 League of Women Voters forum with Mike French. Comments on social media echoed that narrative.
Then the poster. Red type: “Jake Seegers Bails On The September 28 Forum.” An empty chair on a laptop accusing him of denying voters a conversation unless it was on his terms. The bottom line was the tell: “Vote Mike French.”
“Conditions attached” means they asked a question
On September 8, voter services chair Deb Cannon canceled both the September 28 County Commissioner forum and the October 1 County Auditor forum. The notices used the same sentence. Policy “requires at least two candidates participating on the terms outlined in the Candidate Forum invitation — a forum cannot proceed with an empty chair or with conditions attached.”
The forums weren’t cancelled because candidates refused to appear, but because candidates had “attached conditions.”
Shogren’s mistake: asking questions of the question askers
On August 28, auditor candidate Virginia Shogren said she would answer voters, but not before the League answered her questions. A forum works only if the host is, and is reasonably seen to be, a neutral referee.
She asked which tax-exempt entity would sponsor and brand the forum, and for the current nonpartisan policy. She asked how publishing a condemnation of a sitting presidential administration is issue advocacy rather than opposition to a candidate or party.
She asked for the chapter’s relationship with Indivisible Sequim, Indivisible Port Angeles, and any other group endorsing Clallam candidates: joint events, shared tables, rallies, and use of the League name, logo, or shirts since January 1, 2025.
She asked why members in League identification at “No Kings” and “Resist” rallies should be treated as separate from those organizers’ endorsements.
She asked what role the chapter played in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 Clallam Conservation District supervisor elections, and whether that role was observation or handling ballots.
She cited a December 2025 Thurston County Superior Court ruling that voided the District’s 2024 election for unauthorized procedure. She asked for a written commitment that the chapter will not process ballots in a race where a partner group has endorsed a candidate, and will not appear at partisan rallies under the League name while recruiting for its forums.
On September 6, Cannon sent the waiver, the forum policy, orientation slides, and tabling guidance. The slides call the League a “nonpartisan, political organization.”
The tabling sheet is blunter: “The League is not neutral.” Shogren had asked for a list of joint events with Indivisible and similar groups, a dated account of any ballot handling in Conservation District elections, and the name of the tax-exempt entity that would host this forum. None of the attachments supplies any of these.
Shogren said stock materials are not numbered answers. She would not sign the release. She also refused a rule that converts a demand for answers into a public claim that she canceled voter education. Answer the August 28 letter, she told the League, and she would reconsider.
The next morning the forum was canceled. Best of luck in your campaign.
The waiver is the point
The form is one page. The candidate grants the League permission to record the forum. The next paragraph takes that recording away: the content “is the property of the League of Women Voters of Clallam County and cannot be rebroadcast or used by anyone else WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN LEAGUE PERMISSION.” The candidate also releases the League and everyone involved from liability for taking, publishing, and using the recordings.
The League screens the questions, runs the clock, keeps the only official tape, owns the answers, and decides who else may use them. A candidate who will not sign does not get the stage. A candidate who signs does not get the recording.
Seegers offered to show up
On August 23, Cannon said policy calls for Zoom only forums due to access, a bigger audience, equal time, and a recording. Candidates had been held to that format for six years. She thanked French for agreeing. A footnote admitted they had recently edited out a “pornographic zoom bomber” and switched to a webinar.
On August 24, Seegers did not refuse. He asked for an in-person forum with Zoom access, the way county meetings already run. “It would be a pleasure to participate if LWV reconsiders and offers an in-person or hybrid forum.”
Cannon’s reply rewrote the offer as a no. “We wish you were flexible to try something different, but respect your choice to not participate.” On September 8 the forum was canceled for lack of two candidates “on the terms outlined.” French had accepted. Seegers had asked to be in the room. Under League rules, that is an empty chair.
Four years ago, French debated Bill Peach in a virtual-only League format. Peach cut out. His face would not show. The glitches devoured the exchange.
Zoom also lets the League collect questions by email and curate which ones to ask, possibly altering questions and feeding them in advance to candidates. When done live, in the same room, that is harder. Seegers’s recent interview with Jesse Charles shows what the League format avoids. Two people who disagree sat in the same room, had respectful dialogue, and found common ground. A webinar with screened questions cannot do that.
Defending the format, not the voters
The League of Women Voters tabling guidance says the organization will never support or oppose a candidate or party. It also says nonpartisan does not mean non-political: “The League is not neutral.”
In the League’s telling, it may advocate on issues its members have adopted, because issues are not partisan.
A civics referee like the LWV who wanted that distinction believed would have answered the questions that test it. This local chapter did not. Shogren asked about joint events with Indivisible and about who touched Conservation District ballots. She got orientation slides and a release. Seegers asked for the hybrid option that county meetings and the Calico Cat Club already use. The chapter called that inflexibility, canceled the forum, and left the preferred candidate’s allies free to print “he bailed.”
It is the same habit voters watched last year, when League secretary Susan Fisch chaired the Charter Review Commission. Robert’s Rules of Order were set aside. Agenda items moved only with her consent. League members in the audience passed her signals on how to run the meeting and Fisch turned the 2025 Charter Review into a mockery of the democratic process. That is not a civic club looking for dialogue. It is a circle that already knows the outcome and treats procedure as the obstacle.
On September 6 the national League asked voters where they were getting their information. Start with these emails. Seegers and Shogren were willing to face the public. The Clallam chapter canceled both forums rather than answer a question or share a room, then stood inside a brand that says it is defending democracy.
The League was not defending democracy. It was defending its grip on the stage, the recording, and the narrative.
Holding the feet of LWV to the fire. They have held reign for far too long. Good work!