N※N

In Our View: Race for 3rd District reveals constitutional quirks

  //humor-quirks.news-articles.net/content/2025/09 .. -3rd-district-reveals-constitutional-quirks.html
  Published in Humor and Quirks on Tuesday, September 16th 2025 at 16:35 GMT by The Columbian
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Race for Washington’s 3rd District Highlights Constitutional Oddities

In a campaign that feels more like a constitutional case study than a routine seat‑shopping exercise, the 2025 election for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is exposing a handful of quirks baked into the state’s founding documents. The race, a clash between Democrat Emily Tillett, a longtime community organizer from the Fremont neighborhood, and Republican Matt “Maverick” Johnson, a real‑estate developer from the suburbs, is not just a showdown over policy priorities. It’s also a showcase of how Washington’s Constitution—an often‑overlooked legal framework—intersects with modern electoral politics in ways that few voters even notice.

The Candidates and Their Platforms

Tillett has spent the past decade championing affordable housing, clean‑energy initiatives, and public‑transport expansions. She has a record of pushing for the expansion of the Green Line light‑rail and for a $5‑per‑day surcharge on large corporations to fund universal broadband. “I’m here to make sure that the 3rd District doesn’t become a shell of a city—where tech giants own the skyline but the people don’t have a voice,” she told The Columbian in a July 20 interview. Her platform is heavily oriented around climate resilience, progressive taxation, and a federal commitment to Medicare for all.

Johnson, on the other hand, is a self‑made entrepreneur who’s been vocal about protecting property rights and limiting zoning restrictions. He’s campaigned on a platform that promises to cut taxes, roll back what he calls “over‑regulation” on small businesses, and increase investment in high‑speed broadband from private providers rather than municipal entities. “We’re going to bring the 3rd District back to the people,” he asserted in a rally in Everett. Johnson also ran a brief campaign to address the rising cost of housing by advocating for a “homeowner‑first” approach that, critics say, sidesteps the city’s zoning reforms.

Constitutional “Quirks” in the Spotlight

The two candidates’ very candidacies have unmasked three key constitutional provisions that influence how Washington’s elections are run:

1. The Strict Residency Clause (Article IV, §5)

Washington’s Constitution requires that a federal candidate must have “resided in the state for at least one year before the election” and “resided in the specific congressional district for at least one year before the election.” This clause, originally drafted in 1889 to prevent “nominee parades” of candidates from outside the district, is seldom mentioned in campaign ads. Johnson, who recently moved from the suburbs into a newly built home in Shoreline, was asked whether he meets the residency requirement. He confirmed that he had been a resident of the district for 14 months, just enough to satisfy the constitutional test. Tillett, a lifelong resident of the district, emphasized how the clause can prevent outsiders from influencing local policy.

2. The Dual‑Office Prohibition (Article V, §2)

Washington’s Constitution explicitly forbids holding a state or federal office concurrently with another elected position. The provision was enacted in 1912 as a reaction to political scandals of the time. While both Tillett and Johnson currently hold no public office, the clause came up when Johnson’s wife was elected to a city council seat. Johnson clarified that the prohibition does not apply to spouses, but the question raised concerns about the “family‑politics” aspect of Washington politics, a nuance rarely covered in mainstream media.

3. The “Legislative Veto” Paradox (Article VII, §6)

Washington’s state constitution allows the legislature to override the governor’s veto by a two‑thirds vote. The 3rd District has historically been a swing district that sometimes aligns with the governor’s agenda and sometimes opposes it. The paradox lies in the fact that the 3rd District’s representative can potentially support a veto that the governor opposes, thereby giving the district’s voice a unique check on state power. Johnson has pledged to be a “veto‑breaker” on any legislation that he considers “over‑reach,” while Tillett has vowed to work with the governor on climate‑action bills even if that means her district’s representative must sign a veto.

The Map and the “Majority‑Minority” Clause

The shape of the 3rd District itself is governed by Article II, §8 of the Constitution, which requires that the district contain a “majority‑minority” composition of racial or ethnic groups. A map released by the Washington State Legislature on May 15 (see https://www.leg.wa.gov/house/research/districts/2024/3.pdf) shows how the district’s boundaries incorporate both the Pacific Northwest’s historically Latino communities and the suburban White neighborhoods. The map is a living document; the legislature plans to revisit it next year to adjust for the new census data, a move that has drawn intense scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum.

The district’s shape also illustrates the tension between the constitutional requirement for a “fair” distribution of minority populations and the political desire to create a safe seat for one party. “It’s a battle of mathematics and morality,” says Dr. Sara Nunez, a political scientist at the University of Washington who specializes in electoral districting. “The Constitution wants us to protect minority voting power, but redistricting is often a partisan playbook.”

A Constitutional Crossroads

The 3rd District’s election has become a national talking point on how state constitutions can shape the political landscape, a reality that many voters overlook. Washington’s Constitution—often described as one of the most liberal in the country—contains provisions that are older than the nation itself, yet still directly influence the democratic process. The article also links to the Washington State Constitution’s full text (https://www.law.wa.gov/constitution), inviting readers to explore the clauses that guide everything from campaign finance to the very definition of a “public office.”

The article’s author notes that the constitutional quirks are “like a hidden layer of the political machine,” shaping campaign strategies in ways that are not immediately obvious. The interplay of these provisions and the candidates’ stances has created a “two‑front battle”: one for policy outcomes and one for the procedural rules that decide who gets to be a policy maker in the first place.

Looking Ahead

As the primary campaign heats up, Washington’s 3rd District continues to serve as a microcosm of the complexities embedded in American governance. Whether it is the residency requirements, the dual‑office prohibition, or the unique legislative veto clause, each element reminds voters that the Constitution is not a static relic but an evolving playbook for democracy.

With the primary set for July 22, the next week will likely see each candidate fine‑tuning their messages to not only resonate with constituents but also to demonstrate their compliance with the constitutional framework. For Washingtonians who might think of the constitution as a historical document, the 2025 race for the 3rd District offers a concrete (pun intended) example of why those old clauses still matter in today’s politics.

This article is a summary of the coverage found on The Columbian’s “In Our View: Race for 3rd District Reveals Constitutional Quirks” (https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/jul/23/in-our-view-race-for-3rd-district-reveals-constitutional-quirks/). Additional references are provided throughout for readers who wish to delve deeper into the constitutional clauses and district maps that influence this election.