One word described the first major forum for Tacoma's mayoral candidates last night: Jarring.

On one side was Jim Merritt, whose three decades working as an architect in Tacoma have been marked by strong involvement in civic life. Merritt's had a hand in numerous community undertakings: the siting of Interstate 705, redevelopment of the old Asarco smelter site, the cable-stay bridge, the Tacoma Convention and Trade Center, Union Station and the Foss Waterway master plan, among others.

All that, and he's the candidate running as the outsider. Merritt repeatedly told the City Club crowd last night that the city hasn't been listening to its citizens. He said City Hall isn't reaching out to its neighborhoods, and worse, it's driving businesses away. I lost count of how many times Merritt mentioned getting back to the "grassroots." (Fellow editorial board member Pat O'Callahan remarked, "I was ready to have him work on my lawn.") Merritt called for a 100-year plan for Tacoma, saying "We need to start setting a course that we can believe in."

And then there was Marilyn Strickland, who just a couple of years ago was a relative newcomer to city politics, albeit a well-networked one. Strickland, as a city councilwoman, is essentially cast in the role of incumbent in the mayor's race. She can't criticize the direction of the city without faulting herself by association.

Strickland defended the city's decision to pass out fat raises to non-union employees last year, saying that it would have been "unfair of the city to treat them badly at this time" after asking them to make do with 1 percent raises in previous years. And she said she's proud of the city's efforts to focus on the city's public schools, a development she chalked up to her race for council two years ago.

Merritt and Strickland don't square off until November, so their campaigns likely won't hit their stride until after August's primary. But out of the gate, the fall's race is shaping up to be one laced with contradictions: the anti-establishment member of Tacoma's who's-who vs. the fresh-faced, next-generation insider. That alone should be interesting to watch.

This editorial will appear in Thursday's print edition.

What’s happening south of our state line is enough to make the likes of Tim Eyman, as well as a number of thwarted Washington Democrats, green with envy.

On Monday, Oregon legislators wrapped up a session – marked by their bracing refusal to let policy ambitions bow to the economy – that has left the state ripe for a tax revolt. Business leaders announced last week that they plan to spend big to defeat $733 million in tax hikes.

Eyman might wish for some of that mojo. As the perennial tax-cut hawker’s annual appointment with the secretary of state’s office draws near today, it’s looking like he’ll cross the finish line huffing and puffing, if at all.

=> Read more!

This editorial will appear in tomorrow's print edition.

Taken too far, efforts to fix past racial discrimination tip over into reverse discrimination. But how far is too far?

The U.S. Supreme Court took a well-aimed stab at that knotty question this week when it ruled that a group of white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn., shouldn’t have had their high test scores thrown out because the exam hadn’t produced any black candidates for lieutenant or captain.

A case like this turns on the details. It’s easy to imagine promotion requirements that are clearly unfair to minority candidates. In fact, American fire departments used to routinely screen out minorities – especially blacks – with a variety of practices unrelated to job performance. Passing out jobs to the sons and nephews of other firefighters, for example. Or simply not hiring and promoting blacks – or ostracizing any who did wind up getting hired.

New Haven, like a lot of cities, once had a nearly lily-white fire department. That’s why it went to considerable lengths to come up with a neutral promotion exam that tested for actual job skills.

=> Read more!

How valuable would it be to watch the arguments in such landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases as Marbury vs. Madison, Brown vs. Board of Education, Bush vs. Gore? Technology wasn't possible for that to happen with the first case, but it was with the other two.

And what about big cases happening in the present? Will future generations look back and wonder why they were denied the chance to watch Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrogate hapless attorneys?

Providing a window into history is one reason Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander wholeheartedly supports televising high court proceedings. I talked with him Tuesday for today's editorial about cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alexander speaks from experience: TVW has been airing arguments in his court since 1995. He likes it – and thinks it would be a great idea for the U.S. Supreme Court. Televising can help the public learn about government and democratic institutions, he said, and demystify the court process.

"It's been a very pleasant relationship (with TVW), and there's been no disruption in proceedings," he said by phone from Olympia.

=> Read more!