Letter: Candidate who mislead doesn’t deserve to win


In the Aug. 27 News-Times, Terry Sparks wrote about Clyde Shavers, “Don’t be fooled. There is more to the story.” Now we know he was right.

In the Aug. 31 paper, Maj. Gen. Patricia Rose states, “I believe candidate quality is most important — and we know that Clyde Shavers is definitely the better candidate.” Perhaps that depends on one’s definition of “better.”

Jan-Marc Jouas, Lt. Gen. USAF (retired) and Marion Jouas, Lt. Col. USAF (retired) stated in their Oct. 26 letter that honor is a quality sought in an elected representative. They also stated that it was clear that honor was one of Clyde Shavers’ values, and that he was “committed to serving our community with integrity.” Now that the truth has been made known, do the people who voted for Mr. Shavers still believe that his life is one of honor and integrity?

The Seattle Times’ Nov. 14 editorial decries the special interest cash that influenced voters in the 2022 state election. The Service Employees International gave more than $6 million. Two million went to New Direction PAC. Most of Clyde Shavers’ (and also Dave Paul’s) flyers were paid for by New Direction PAC or SEIU 775, not grassroots citizens.

Clyde Shavers claimed to be an attorney even though he hasn’t passed the bar exam. He said the 10th District was “his community” even though his primary residence is in King County, not a vacation rental on Whidbey, and he is employed by a Seattle law firm.

Did the Democratic Party vet Mr. Shavers prior to pouring money into his campaign? The chair of the House Democratic Campaign Committee said he believed Shavers had “fallen short”” and his expectation is “that he learn from this.” Don’t the Democrats have a higher standard than that for candidates they endorse and bankroll?

How can this blatant attempt to mislead voters be rectified? What about the voters who want to rescind their votes for Shavers just like the Everett Herald Editorial Board pulled its endorsement of him? The Herald board stated that, “Candidates for public office…must be held to a higher standard regarding the veracity of their record and their positions. Shavers has violated that trust.”

The question now is how can this travesty of an election be corrected? Is there an ethics committee in Olympia? If Shavers is declared the “winner,” can the “honest” and truly qualified candidate, Greg Gilday, be awarded the House seat instead because his opponent purposely lied and misled the voters?

Claudia Talmadge

Oak Harbor