Martin Luther King Jr. County
If you did, and you bothered to read it (which is hardly a given since I suspect most people quickly toss such things away, hopefully in a recycling bin), you may have noticed a small section in the newsletter entitled, State re-names our county MLK County, which reads:
In April, the Governor signed into law the name Martin Luther King County. Eight years ago, the name had been informally adopted to include MLK, but now it is formal. The governor signed the bill into law on the first floor of the King County Courthouse.I must admit that this news surprised me as I cannot recall reading anything about this.
We are the only county in the state that has had its name changed under state law. I wish there had been more discussion of this matter in King County prior to the State Legislature changing our county's name.
I'm going to get back to what Kathy Lambert wrote in a bit, but first let me point you to relevant information that further elucidate on the matter.
On April 19 there was a news release issued by King County:
State law changed to rename King CountyThe motion referenced ends like so:
With a stroke of a pen, King County officially became Martin Luther King Junior County today, as Governor Christine Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5332 into law at the King County Courthouse. About 100 citizens, community leaders and local and state elected leaders attended the bill signing that came 19 years after the King County Council voted to rename the county to honor civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The county was originally named in 1852 for William Rufus King, Vice President for President Franklin Pierce. Since the state charters all counties, state law had to be changed to make the renaming official. State Senator Adam Kline sponsored state legislation eight consecutive years before the legislature this year voted to authorize the name change. State Representative Eric Pettigrew sponsored the bill in the State House of Representatives.
King County Executive Ron Sims and Bruce Laing co-sponsored the county name change in 1986 while both were members of the County Council. In his remarks today, Sims recalled that the idea was born out of the advocacy of community leaders and newspaper columnist Shelby Scates who believed that the county's name should symbolize justice and equality which the Reverend Dr. King fought for.
View the motion, which was passed on Feb. 24, 1986, here.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The King County Council, hereby, sets forth the historical basis for the "renaming" of King County in honor of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man whose contributions are well-documented and celebrated by millions throughout this nation and the world, and embody the attributes for which the citizens of King County can be proud, and claim as their own.So getting back to Kathy Lambert's statement that "eight years ago the name had been informally adopted to include MLK", I'm left a little confused. King County clearly appears to have changed the origin of the name 19 years ago, so why was it only informally adopted 8 years ago?
BE IT FURTHER MOVED,
King County shall be named after the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
PASSED this 24th day of February, 1986.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
A little searching of the Washington Legislature site yields the bill in question, ESB 5332, that led to Governor Gregoire's signing the new name into law. It simply amends the last sentence of both RCW 36.04.170 and 1 H.C. s 13 to read:
King county is named in honor of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.The bill was introduced on January 20. The following amendments to the bill were attempted.
- Sen. Esser wanted to amend the wording to read both Martin Luther King Jr. and William Rufus King. The amendment was withdrawn on March 8.
- Sen. Mulliken wanted to amend the wording to read, "King county is named King State in honor of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. King State has all the rights and privileges of statehood."
- Sen. Stevens wanted to amend the wording to read, "King county is renamed in honor of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." This amendment was adopted on March 8.
- Rep. Nixon wanted to completely change the bill to remove the provision renaming King County in honor of MLK, and instead authorize King County to rename itself, after which the county would be required to seek a public vote on the matter. The amendment failed on April 5.
Firstly, Senator Mulliken should be ashamed of herself for making a mockery of this bill with her amendment. There is no indication it was withdrawn, and we know it wasn't adopted, so her amendment was purely for the record. Furthermore, once the bill was passed unanimously by the Senate, with the minor rewording, it was then passed by the House on April 5 but with dissent: yeas, 64; nays, 31; absent, 0; excused, 3. Voting against were Representatives Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Buck, Buri, Chandler, Condotta, Cox, Crouse, Curtis, DeBolt, Dunn, Haler, Hankins, Hinkle, Holmquist, Kretz, McCune, McDonald, Newhouse, Nixon, Orcutt, Roach, Rodne, Schindler, Shabro, Skinner, Sump, Talcott, and Walsh. There is no recorded testimony against passage in the Bill Reports of either the House or the Senate. The bill was signed into law on April 19. The Final Bill Report states the bill is effective on July 24, 2005.
All this went pretty much unreported, which accounts, in part, for why Kathy Lambert's info on it was surprising to me. The Seattle Times did run a Saturday editorial four days after the signing in law, but I cannot find anything in the Seattle PI related to it. The Times wrote:
Dr. King is a worthier namesake. His courageous struggle against poverty and racism are a better reflection of the ethics and values of our county. Credit goes to state Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, and Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, for pushing the name-change through a Legislature divided along party lines over the issue.Why would this be an issue that divides the legislature by party lines? The 31 "nay" votes are just perplexing to me. As the Seattle Times editorial points out, King County will phase in any changes to images in stationary, calendars, or whatnot, only as it orders replacements. The King County Council certainly wasn't being strong-armed into a change it didn't want to make. Yet 31 votes against such an obvious bill give an indication of the mood in the House this spring, and adds to my amazement that Governor Gregoire was able to get the dissenting Republicans to support anything at all, such as the landmark Transportation Bill that passed with bipartisan support.
Which brings me back to Kathy Lambert's blurb about this in her newsletter. The other aspect of this news that surprised me was how she announced it when she writes, "I wish there had been more discussion of this matter in King County prior to the State Legislature changing our county's name." What does she mean? The change in King County was made over 19 years ago. What more was needed to be discussed? She makes no comments in support of the name change, or the significance of the man the name change honors. She doesn't refer to our Governor by name, which is in itself a tip that this whole blurb is directed at her Republican base to which she merely reports the name change, and to which she wants to demonstrate her reservations about it without coming out more forcefully and saying what they are. Her words indicate that the 31 votes against this were important enough to Republicans that she doesn't want to be viewed as supportive of the end result.
All this politicking regarding such a matter and Martin Luther King Jr. is quite pathetic.
Anyway, I have emailed her for further elaboration on this, and if I receive a response I will post it here.
So there you have it, King County has been officially named after Martin Luther King Jr., and it is about time it happened. You just may have read it here first, almost two months after the fact.
Posted at 6/12/2005 12:38:00 AM PT
Permanent Link
8 Comment(s):
Good catch, but Senator Stevens is Senator Val Stevens.
Oh and that amendment to kick King County out of our state - S-W-E-L-L!
Doh! I've updated the post to change him to her.
Nice article.
Good summary of the issues. I had heard a rumor though that we would have to pay the estate of MLK in order to use his name and likeness - did you have any informatino on this? A followup would be interesting if you have more details.
Blair - Yes, apparently that is true. I've been in touch with Kathy Lambert and plan a followup on this in a few days if I can track down the details.
Actually Sen. Stevens amendment was adopted 03/08/2005...Read it here.
I did indicate that Sen. Stevens' amendment provided the final wording. However, I stupidly mis-wrote "Stevens" instead of "Mulliken" in my commentary regarding about making a mockery of the bill. My apologies to Sen. Stevens for the error, which has been corrected above.
I find it interesting that no one mentions that William Rufus King was a homosexual.
read this article I found on Google from
www.taemag.com (the American Enterprise Magazine) the
exact link is:
http://www.taemag.com/printVersion/print_article.asp?articleID=17768
I found this researching James Buchanan...
*****Particularly read the last two pharagraphs!!!!!
King: Queen or Tyrant?
By Bill Kauffman
Vice President William Rufus King of Alabama may have
been a "prim, wig-topped mediocrity," as historian Roy
F. Nichols judged him, but King was also about as
flaming a queen as the1840s would allow. As Steve
Tally wrote in his popular account of the Vice
Presidents, "King did nothing to dispel the stereotype
of the effeminate homosexual. He was a flowing dandy
who favored silk scarves, brilliant stickpins, and
glittery accoutrements."
The Veep made Oscar Wilde in full flower look like
Ernest Borgnine. But what inquiring minds have really
wanted to know is just what kind of friend he was to
his roommate, Pennsylvania senator (and later
President) James Buchanan. While there is little
question of King’s proclivities, the matter of
Buchanan’s sexuality remains a mystery. His only
serious courtship was of a rich Lancaster girl named
Anne Coleman, who seems to have committed suicide
after breaking off their engagement under murky
circumstances. (Letters that might have illuminated
the affair were burned--at the President’s
request--after his death.) Historian Nichols argued
that Buchanan used the "romantic legend" of Anne’s
suicide "to shield himself" from later suspicions that
he lacked an interest in women. For 50 years, his
mourning gave him excuse to avoid female
companionship.
Instead, he consorted with Democratic Senator King,
with whom he roomed from 1836 until 1844.While
same-sex cohabitation was common, their relationship
clearly was not. Washingtonians called them "Siamese
twins" and "Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan." King was widely
referred to as "Aunt Fancy," while Andrew Jackson
called him "Miss Nancy."
Their household broke up when King was appointed
minister to France, though he wrote "Dear Buchanan"
from Paris, "I am selfish enough to hope you will not
be able to procure an associate ho will cause you to
feel no regret at our separation."
Subtlety was shoved into the closet when opposition
papers described either man. As one anti-Buchanan
newspaper sketched him, "Mr. B has a shrill, almost
female voice, and wholly beardless cheeks; and he is
not by any means, in any aspect the sort of man likely
to cut his throat for any Chloe or Phillis in
Pennsylvania."
The friends had but one serious political
disagreement. Buchanan, stalwart of the imperialist
wing of the Democratic Party, wished the U.S. to
acquire Cuba and Central America, while King opposed
expansion in any direction, even westward.
The roomies promoted each other’s career with an avid
mutuality. To no avail, Buchanan urged King upon his
party in 1840 as a replacement for Van Buren’s Vice
President Richard M. Johnson. When Buchanan served as
Secretary of State under Polk, he tried,
unsuccessfully, to maneuver Polk into appointing King
as his successor. For his part, King tirelessly
boosted Old Buck for President. In 1852, after
Buchanan had lost yet another Democratic nomination,
he was appeased by the selection of King as Franklin
Pierce’s running mate.
King, alas, was tubercular and dying.
He sought recuperation in Cuba and by an act of
Congress was allowed to take his oath of office on
that island so coveted by Buchanan. He came home to
Cahaba, Alabama to die, and did so just six weeks into
his Vice Presidency.
Four years later, Dear Buchanan became our only
bachelor President. Though vilified as a weakling by
conventional historians, Buchanan has had the
posthumous good luck to fascinate his fellow
Pennsylvanian John Updike, who has devoted a novel and
a marvelous if obscure play (Buchanan Dying) to the
Keystone State’s only President. Updike has been an
able and imaginative defender of Buchanan, whose
"cautious and literal constitutionalism" he finds
maligned in "history books written by Lincolnophiles
and neo-abolitionists."
As for William Rufus King, this homosexual
slave-owning defender of th South’s peculiar
institution embodies a classic P.C. contradiction. So
much so that in 1986, the sensitive solons of King
County, Washington decided to change their county’s
eponym from the nineteenth-century Vice President to
Martin Luther King, Jr.
But--was this not homophobia? A hate crime committed
by Seattle liberals? So asserted one gay-rights
activist, who has launched a campaign to once more
honor William R. King--or at least that half of him
that loved men, not the half that owned them.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link