Senator Lorraine Wojahn

Sen. Wojahn: Well, that was usually on an
amendment. On an amendment there were
changes in the scope of the bill. And always on
final passage, because there’s a ninety-to-ten
chance any bill could be controversial of which
you’re not aware, and the other side might not
tell you they’re going to kill it. It might be an
innocuous little bill. I almost lost a bill once
because I thought it was so innocuous that no
one – and it was one of my own caucus
members that damn near killed it. But we
managed to get them turned around and got it
straightened out. We had to reconsider, I think.
So, you usually count votes in your own caucus
if there’s any slippage that you suspect. And
then you go to the other side to count votes, if
there’s some slippage in your own caucus.
There were usually members of the opposing
party who have the same philosophy on an issue
that you have and you always ask them about
their vote, even though you’re relatively certain
that they are going to be with you. But anyone
can disrupt; it can be very disruptive and very
shattering.
Ms. Kilgannon: I would guess. And I
understand that the courtesy of asking someone
also helps cement their vote, in case they were
wavering. That you bothered to talk to them
about it would help a little.
Sen. Wojahn: It’s not so much – it might be
for a green senator, but not for old timers; they
know.
Ms. Kilgannon: I have heard of instances
when people said, “Well, nobody even asked
me, so yes, I’ll go with you.” But it must have
been on things that were a little less…
Sen. Wojahn: Less controversial. On abortion
issues, I usually asked on both sides – and you
know, you’re surprised sometimes at the
position of the Republican Party – some of them
just are great. And yes, I expect on a point like
that, where it’s really controversial, they would
appreciate being asked. I don’t think they would
change their vote if not asked, because of the
philosophy.
Ms. Kilgannon: It’s just a little extra that you
can do.
697
Sen. Wojahn: A little extra. There were always
members of the opposite party I could go to and
ask for things. And sometimes when you didn’t
ask, they did it anyway. I remember we were
fighting the issue of the Pantages money and I
didn’t know where my votes were and Sid
Morrison came over and said, “Do you have
enough votes?” And I said, “No, I need one
more.” And he changed his vote. So it was a
courtesy extended, and it was good.
Ms. Kilgannon: So, for him, perhaps, he voted
against it, but without any conviction one way
or the other?
Sen. Wojahn: No conviction, but it was money
being spent out of his district and so he was
courteous and asked. The same thing happened
when we were battling the Cascadia issue. So in
those days it was good to be in the Senate
because there was a mutual respect, always. It
wasn’t a dog-eat-dog situation. I remember
fighting the issue of putting the Seattle
Convention Center over the freeway; I thought
that was the craziest thing I had ever heard,
because of the danger to the underlying portion.
They had to reinforce all of that. It was very
expensive. And I remember battling the issue of
the Mariners baseball field. I didn’t think it was
appropriate, for the state to buy into that. So I’m
known for fighting issues for which I didn’t
believe it was appropriate to use public money.
And handing over the taxing base for the state
of Washington to the group in Seattle who
wanted to do the Convention Center was wrong
– and it was done anyway.
Ms. Kilgannon: It did set somewhat of a
precedent, didn’t it?
Sen. Wojahn: It became a state building. But
we managed to require that the operators pay the
fringe benefits for all the state employees. That
would have been all state employees working
there. I think I went along with the World’s Fair
in Spokane as an economic development issue
for eastern Washington. I didn’t fight that. And I
didn’t fight anything which was appropriate for
Seattle. But some things were not. Not with the
use of state money. I was willing to go along
with the Convention Center tax credits with