A Nonpartisan Window?

By Bryan Dominique
Communications Manager – Office of the Pierce County Council 

It’s a little-known fact, but most of the Pierce County Council staff is nonpartisan. The only partisan positions in the Office of the Pierce County Council are within the individual offices that form the legislative body. The nonpartisan staff support the Council as a whole, and, at least as I’ve come to see it, are simply trying to make complex and confusing things more understandable.

In that spirit, I want to take a moment to shift the Overton Window, the view of what’s considered politically possible, because let’s be honest: there is a lot happening at the federal and state levels right now.

So: Here. We. Go.

Last week’s issue of The County Legislator read, “The recent clash between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Washington State over the Keep Washington Working Act illustrates an ongoing tension in American federalism: who carries the responsibility for immigration enforcement, and how far federal power can reach into state and local jurisdictions. 

The DOJ has argued that state restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement obstruct federal law, while Washington maintains that its statute reaffirms the constitutional principle that states cannot be compelled to carry out federal directives.”

Interestingly, another newsletter went out that same day, asking whether the Keep Washington Working Act is as constitutionally sound as the state believes, and whether it’s worth the cost at the expense of local priorities.

The newsletter also explored the 14th Amendment and how it relates to the state’s interpretation of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.

Each interpretation draws from a legitimate constitutional tradition, even if they reach different conclusions. It’s all about what Reconstruction did.

Where is Liberty, as Defined by the Constitution?

Debates over immigration enforcement and diversity policies in Washington State are often reduced to states’ rights vs. federal supremacy. But that framing misses a deeper constitutional question: do we interpret the Constitution as it was signed in 1789, or as it was reshaped by Reconstruction in the 1860s?

The originalist view derives its meaning from the text, as it was signed in 1789. Under this frame, immigration clearly belongs to the federal government, and equal protection means treating people as individuals without group classifications.

A person could conclude that state policy may test the limits in its approach to immigration and its policies on equity and diversity.

However, there is a second, equally justified way of viewing the Constitution, which is the approach of a contextualist. This view treats Reconstruction (1868 and after) as a constitutional rebirth. The 14th Amendment was designed to correct systemic inequities and to empower federal and state governments to act against discrimination. From this lens, equal protection is not just about neutral treatment but about remedying historic and ongoing injustice.

A person could conclude that federal policy may test the limits of its powers in its approach to states on immigration and equity policies.  

Looking specifically at the policies:

• Keep Washington Working Act (KWW):
  • Originalist lens: Immigration is a federal domain, so Washington risks overstepping. Anti-commandeering still protects the state from being forced to participate, but the presumption favors federal power.
  • Contextualist lens: States have broad discretion in how they allocate resources. Refusing to enforce federal immigration law is a legitimate expression of state sovereignty within the modern balance of federalism.
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):
  • Originalist lens: Equal protection applies to individuals, not groups. Broad race or identity-based policies risk violating the 14th Amendment unless tied to a specific, proven instance of discrimination.
  • Contextualist lens: The 14th Amendment was built to confront systemic inequality. DEI can be seen as fulfilling that purpose by creating lasting remedies in schools and institutions.

What did Reconstruction do? Did it expand rights by adjusting the original text, or did it redefine what American liberty is?

At its core, this isn’t a debate over whether liberty was expanded; it’s a debate over how our institutions define and safeguard it.

In Pierce County, there is space for respectful dialogue, within the context of determining local policies, rather than addressing this complex question. That’s best left to the state.