Public Defender Nathan Rouse Brings Frontline Experience to Seattle City Attorney Race

Campaign Website - Nathan Rouse

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I’m your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what you can do about it.

Today, we're speaking with Nathan Rouse, a candidate running for Seattle's City Attorney, a position with real power to shape how our city responds to harm, enforces laws, and protects the rights of its residents. While this office doesn't always make headlines, its decisions have a direct impact on public safety, civil rights, and the everyday lives of Seattleites. The City Attorney leads a staff of nearly 200, including more than 100 attorneys, and oversees both the criminal, civil, and administrative divisions of the office.

On the criminal side, the City Attorney prosecutes misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases - things like shoplifting, simple assault, DUI, and trespassing - in Seattle Municipal Court. Felony cases are handled by the King County Prosecutor, so that's a different entity, not the City Attorney. So while the office doesn't oversee or deal with the most serious violent crimes, it plays a major role in shaping how lower-level offenses are addressed - including whether to pursue prosecution, offer diversion, or prioritize treatment and services over jail time.

On the civil side, the City Attorney serves as legal counsel for the City of Seattle - advising elected officials, reviewing legislation, and defending the city in lawsuits. That includes navigating complex and high-stakes issues: deciding how to respond to federal attempts to identify and deport undocumented immigrants and other actions, even when doing so could put federal funding for critical services like housing and transit at risk; advising a largely new City Council on the legality of proposed laws; and determining how to approach enforcement of newly passed ordinances targeting drug use, sex work, and people living outdoors.

In today's conversation, we'll be asking Nathan about his vision for the office, how he'd approach these decisions, and what his priorities will be if elected. But we'll be starting with our Hacks & Wonks Lightning Round questions - series of quick yes-or-no or one-word-answer questions. And if you aren't able to provide an answer quickly, we'll call it a waffle and you can choose to address it later if you wish. We'll get to the open-ended questions after this, so we will have plenty of time. But these are designed to give us - and you - a sense of where each candidate stands on key issues, what values shape their thinking, and how they approach the responsibilities of the role. So we ask you to keep your responses to Yes'es or No's and brief and direct - and we'll have plenty of time to get into the details in the open-ended questions.

So to begin our Lightning Round, do you own or rent your residence?

[00:03:10] Nathan Rouse: Own.

[00:03:11] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord?

[00:03:12] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:03:13] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union?

[00:03:16] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line?

[00:03:20] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:03:20] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line?

[00:03:23] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized?

[00:03:27] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:03:27] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their efforts?

[00:03:33] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:03:34] Crystal Fincher: What political party do you identify with?

[00:03:37] Nathan Rouse: Democrats.

[00:03:38] Crystal Fincher: Have you used the Seattle Public Library system in the past month?

[00:03:42] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:03:43] Crystal Fincher: Have you been to a Seattle City Council meeting in person in the past year?

[00:03:48] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: Have you or someone in your household ever relied on public assistance?

[00:03:54] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:03:54] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been stopped or questioned by police in Seattle?

[00:03:58] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:03:59] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever worked in retail or a job where you had to rely on tips?

[00:04:03] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:04:04] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever owned a business?

[00:04:06] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:07] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever managed a team of 10 or more people?

[00:04:11] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever reported someone's misconduct in your workplace?

[00:04:16] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:17] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever fired someone?

[00:04:19] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:19] Crystal Fincher: What's your favorite park in Seattle?

[00:04:22] Nathan Rouse: Seward Park.

[00:04:23] Crystal Fincher: What's your favorite restaurant?

[00:04:26] Nathan Rouse: Billiard Hoang in Columbia City.

[00:04:28] Crystal Fincher: What was the last live performance that you saw in Seattle?

[00:04:33] Nathan Rouse: Weezer at Climate Pledge Arena.

[00:04:36] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the City Attorney's decision to end Seattle Community Court?

[00:04:41] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe that SPD referrals for use and possession of controlled substances are equitable throughout the city?

[00:04:49] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:50] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe the City Attorney's Office, or CAO, filing decisions for use and possession are being made equitably?

[00:04:57] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:04:58] Crystal Fincher: Do you support the SOAP and SODA legislation passed by the council?

[00:05:01] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:05:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the city's decision to jail people arrested for misdemeanor offenses in the South Correctional Entity, or SCORE, facility in Des Moines?

[00:05:11] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:05:12] Crystal Fincher: Do you support the new safety regulations for nightlife lounges operating after 2 a.m. recently passed by the City Council to address gun violence and disorder?

[00:05:21] Nathan Rouse: Tentatively.

[00:05:23] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs?

[00:05:29] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:05:30] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe it's inappropriate to subpoena media organizations for their records on behalf of SPD?

[00:05:37] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:05:37] Crystal Fincher: Do you support the city's decision to join a lawsuit that challenges the Trump Administration actions against jurisdictions like Seattle that have so-called "sanctuary" policies?

[00:05:49] Nathan Rouse: Absolutely.

[00:05:50] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe that the City Attorney's Office provides sufficient data and transparency regarding their activity and outcomes?

[00:05:58] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:05:59] Crystal Fincher: The City Attorney's Office currently provides a quarterly report for the Criminal Division. Should quarterly reports also be provided for the Civil and Administrative Divisions?

[00:06:09] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe the City Attorney's Office should make hiring decisions that include consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion - or DEI?

[00:06:17] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:06:18] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe the City Attorney's Office should incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations in the design and evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and initiatives?

[00:06:28] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:06:28] Crystal Fincher: Should the City Attorney's Office report on all financial settlements and staff costs related to claims regarding city employee conduct?

[00:06:38] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:06:39] Crystal Fincher: Will you vigorously defend the city against lawsuits that oppose funding or action by Seattle's social housing developer?

[00:06:49] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: Do large corporations in Seattle pay their fair share of taxes?

[00:06:54] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:06:55] Crystal Fincher: Do small businesses in Seattle pay their fair share of taxes?

[00:06:59] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:00] Crystal Fincher: Do you plan to increase funding and staffing for prosecutions of labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting?

[00:07:07] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: Do you think facial recognition should be banned in city use?

[00:07:12] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Did Seattle ever "defund the police"?

[00:07:15] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:07:16] Crystal Fincher: Do you think every police officer in Seattle should be required to live in the city?

[00:07:22] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:07:23] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been arrested?

[00:07:25] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:07:26] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever served on a jury?

[00:07:29] Nathan Rouse: Nope.

[00:07:30] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever contested a traffic ticket?

[00:07:33] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:33] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week?

[00:07:36] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:36] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week?

[00:07:39] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:07:39] Crystal Fincher: What's your favorite song?

[00:07:42] Nathan Rouse: "Fetch the Bolt Cutters" by Fiona Apple.

[00:07:45] Crystal Fincher: Ooh. What's the last song that you listened to?

[00:07:50] Nathan Rouse: A song called "Nina" by Cameron Winter.

[00:07:53] Crystal Fincher: Okay. What's the most recent book you've read?

[00:07:57] Nathan Rouse: Punishment Without Crime by - it's actually right here - Alexandra Natapoff.

[00:08:04] Crystal Fincher: Would you recommend it to others to read?

[00:08:05] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:08:06] Crystal Fincher: Have you voted in every general election in the past four years?

[00:08:10] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: Have you voted in every primary election in the past four years?

[00:08:14] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:08:15] Crystal Fincher: Have you made any political endorsements that you regret?

[00:08:18] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:08:19] Crystal Fincher: Have you made any political donations that you regret?

[00:08:23] Nathan Rouse: No.

[00:08:24] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Seattle Mayor?

[00:08:29] Nathan Rouse: Lorena González.

[00:08:30] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Ann Davison or Nicole Thomas Kennedy for Seattle City Attorney?

[00:08:36] Nathan Rouse: Nicole Thomas Kennedy.

[00:08:37] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Sara Nelson or Nikkita Oliver for City Council?

[00:08:43] Nathan Rouse: Nikkita Oliver.

[00:08:44] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor?

[00:08:50] Nathan Rouse: Leesa Manion.

[00:08:51] Crystal Fincher: In 2024, did you vote for Alexis Mercedes Rinck or Tanya Woo for Seattle City Council?

[00:08:57] Nathan Rouse: Alexis Mercedes Rinck.

[00:08:59] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Nick Brown or Pete Serrano for Attorney General?

[00:09:02] Nathan Rouse: Nick Brown.

[00:09:03] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Bob Ferguson or Dave Reichert for Governor?

[00:09:07] Nathan Rouse: Bob Ferguson.

[00:09:08] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris for President?

[00:09:11] Nathan Rouse: Kamala Harris.

[00:09:12] Crystal Fincher: Will you be voting to approve the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or AFIS, levy on this month's April 22nd ballot?

[00:09:21] Nathan Rouse: Yes.

[00:09:22] Crystal Fincher: This year, on Seattle's social housing initiative in February, did you vote for Option 1A - which passed - 1B, or no to both?

[00:09:31] Nathan Rouse: 1A.

[00:09:31] Crystal Fincher: Will you be voting for Claudia Balducci, John Wilson, or Girmay Zahalai for County Executive?

[00:09:38] Nathan Rouse: Girmay Zahilay.

[00:09:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you for your responses - that concludes our Lightning Round. Hopefully it wasn't too painful.

[00:09:45] Nathan Rouse: That was fun.

[00:09:46] Crystal Fincher: Now we're going to shift into the heart of the conversation with open-ended questions. This is where we'll go deeper on your vision for the City Attorney's Office, and how you'd approach key issues facing Seattle, and how your values would guide your decisions in this role. So to start, why are you running to be Seattle's City Attorney and what are your priorities?

[00:10:05] Nathan Rouse: I'm a public defender and I love being a public defender. However, doing that work day in and day out - meeting with my clients in the jails, in the courtrooms - I see systemic failure on a daily basis in Seattle. I see prosecution without any purpose or plan. I see a failure to use places like the Municipal Court to provide things like mental health support, drug addiction treatment, housing, and other very important resources. The way that prosecution is perpetuated at the misdemeanor level in Seattle is not succeeding - and I see that on a daily basis. I see the failure not only to my clients, but to victims of crimes who are not getting what they want either. And so when I look at a system like the Seattle Municipal Court, I say - What are we doing here and is justice in Seattle just a joke? The prosecutions that happen at the misdemeanor level need to be done with purpose and a plan. And so I'm running because I have an idea of a plan and a purpose for using the Seattle City Attorney's Office to actually interrupt the revolving door of folks going in and out of jail, in and out of warrant status - and to actually use that place as a connection point for services, and interrupt that revolving door, and get at the root causes of these behaviors.

[00:11:51] Crystal Fincher: Now, we'll get into your disagreements with the incumbent - City Attorney Ann Davison - in detail as we proceed throughout this interview. But I'm wondering - has Ann Davison gotten anything right that you would look to continue or build upon?

[00:12:06] Nathan Rouse: An example of something that Ann Davison has gotten right recently was quickly moving to dismiss six complaints by wealthy neighborhoods trying to interrupt the housing development plan in Seattle. I would take proactive action like that as well - because we have a housing crisis in Seattle, and we can't let wealthy neighborhoods disrupt that. We can't let our political process be taken over by NIMBY interests. We have to build housing, and we have to build it now.

[00:12:41] Crystal Fincher: Now, violent crime, including gun violence, continues to harm communities across Seattle. Do you believe the current City Attorney has taken the right steps to address gun violence and violent crime? And what actions would you take to reduce violence and support impacted communities?

[00:12:58] Nathan Rouse: I don't think that the current approach is working. I noticed the other day that there was a law passed to shut down the hookah lounges in south Seattle and other neighborhoods. I will reserve judgment on whether that is effective - but I see that as an example of reactive legislation, not proactive legislation. Make no mistake - gun violence is unacceptable and we have to respond to it, we have to make our communities safer. It's unacceptable that people are dying from gun violence at all in our city and we have to react to that. But in order to be effective, we have to be proactive. You could look to places like Baltimore and their Safe Streets Initiative for recognizing that things like proactive, long-term caseworker support for people that are disproportionately impacted by gun violence is a way of getting at the root cause of some of these things. We can't wait for it to happen and then try to react to it - simply doing stuff like shutting down a handful of small businesses that are predominantly owned by people of color - that is not going to get at the root causes of the gun violence epidemic in our country. It is a public health issue and it must be treated as such.

[00:14:30] Crystal Fincher: Now we've seen a rise in dangerous driving across Seattle - from an increase in pedestrians being hit and killed to other high-profile nuisances like the so-called Belltown Hellcat. What role do you see the City Attorney's Office playing in improving traffic safety and addressing reckless or dangerous driving behaviors on our streets?

[00:14:53] Nathan Rouse: The first thing that comes to mind for addressing traffic safety, I think - has to be addressed by the way that we design our roads. Because the way that our roads are designed enable high-speed driving and reckless driving - and it enables pedestrians and cyclists to be hit, it causes accidents - so we're setting up conditions for these behaviors to harm people. So that is outside of the City Attorney's Office, and it's outside of the scope of the responsibilities. So I think that we need proactive efforts by the City Council to make sure that funding is directed at installing traffic calming devices, making our streets safer, and getting at the issue that way. And I think the City Attorney's Office can be a proactive ally of the City Council in making it clear that the City Attorney's Office will defend any legal effort to those challenges. So the City Attorney, of course, advises leaders like the City Council on issues like that. But I see that as the main way to respond to the dangerous driving and traffic deaths that we see in places like Seattle. I don't think that we're going to be able to prosecute our way out of this issue.

[00:16:20] Crystal Fincher: Is there anything different that you would do to address issues like Driving Under the Influence or habitual nuisances?

[00:16:30] Nathan Rouse: Driving Under the Influence is one of the most serious crimes that's handled by the Seattle Municipal Court. So the City Attorney's Office is handling misdemeanors that are DUIs, up to and including the third DUI in 10 years - it doesn't become a felony until you hit four in 10 years. So that is getting to a place where if someone is alleged to have had a third DUI in 10 years, you're looking at a very serious public safety issue. Those three DUIs could happen within an even shorter time frame than that. So I look at a repeat DUI as a very serious public safety issue, and it's one example of the type of situation where prosecution is appropriate.

If you look at Ann Davison's record, however - on that success of prosecuting DUIs, you see a couple of things. Number one, you see a backlog of DUI prosecutions - that's explained by toxicology delays. I don't buy that excuse for a couple of reasons. One, in Washington, you can prosecute and win a DUI case without any sort of toxicology report. There's an affected by statute - it's a trigger in the statute that allows the prosecutor to prove DUI if someone's affected by alcohol. So an officer can testify about signs of impairment - you don't need a toxicology report to prosecute these serious DUIs. The other thing I see in the Seattle City Attorney's Office is a very, very high rate of dismissals of cases that are set for jury trial. I think in the Quarter 3 of 2024, it was upwards of 70% of cases were being dismissed if they're set for trial. That's a very, very high rate of cases being dismissed. So I look at a serious DUI crime as something that needs to be prosecuted, and there actually needs to be accountability in the traditional sense that we think about prosecution. I don't think that necessarily jail is the answer - but when you get a conviction for a DUI, there are conditions that are attached to it like breathalyzer tests, interlock devices on someone's car, losing the ability to have a license. So we need to take things like repeat DUIs very seriously, and I don't think Ann Davison has been effective on that. I think that the current City Attorney has been very rhetorical when talking about those issues and not very successful.

[00:19:16] Crystal Fincher: What role does the City Attorney play in mitigating federal attacks on civil rights, particularly those that target the trans community and immigrant and refugee communities?

[00:19:27] Nathan Rouse: We have to proactively file lawsuits challenging the federal administration and its effort to crack down on places like Seattle. We can't allow the Trump administration to trample our city's values. I see an example of - I believe it was a headline just the other day - of gender-affirming care not being provided anymore due to threats from the federal Trump administration. We have to protect our city. We have to protect our residents. That includes anyone seeking gender-affirming care, anyone seeking reproductive justice, anyone who does not have the privilege of being what Trump would consider a United States citizen. So we have to use the City Attorney's Office and the Civil Division to file lawsuits challenging things like illegal executive orders. These orders are unconstitutional and they're coming in waves - there's an avalanche of attacks on places like Seattle - and it's only going to get worse. So we cannot back down to Trump.

[00:20:41] Crystal Fincher: Now, Seattle has expanded its use of surveillance technologies, like CCTV systems and Real-Time Crime Center software, particularly in neighborhoods like the Chinatown-International District and Aurora Avenue. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Washington, have raised concerns that these technologies may disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities and could be leveraged by federal agencies like ICE to target immigrants and refugees. Given the Trump administration's intensified immigration enforcement efforts, how would you, as City Attorney, work to ensure that surveillance tools aren't used to exacerbate racial disparities or facilitate federal targeting of vulnerable populations?

[00:21:26] Nathan Rouse: Well, I was opposed to the legislation last year that expanded the use of CCTV technology, purportedly as a method of reducing gun violence. There's no evidence to show that it does that. The use of CCTVs, I believe, is only demonstrably effective at reducing things like car thefts or car break-ins - property-related crimes. So I was opposed to that CCTV expansion for that reason. The broader concerns cited by the ACLU, I think, are very legitimate. The government collecting data about people in broad swaths is always concerning at any time, but particularly at a time when you have Trump breathing down our necks and coming after places like Seattle - it's not out of the realm of possibility that our city leaders will protect everybody as they purport they will. You have a mayor like Eric Adams who is allowing ICE to come into Rikers, and we have to be so vigilant to make sure that something like that does not happen here. And so when I see broad uses of technology to gather people's information, it makes me very concerned because that technology gathers data that then sits in the possession of governments that Trump might be targeting. And if the wrong leader makes the wrong decision about what is done with that data, then all of a sudden it's in the hands of somebody that wants it, to use it for cruel and punitive purposes. And we have to prevent that.

[00:23:21] Crystal Fincher: So what measures would you implement or advise to promote transparency, accountability, and community oversight in the deployment of those technologies?

[00:23:32] Nathan Rouse: I think there needs to be very clear and readily available transparency as the number one step. We were talking earlier about the reports issued by the City Attorney's Office - I believe only the first and third quarterly reports from last year are published on the City Attorney's website. That data is so critical to understand what's actually happening in the City Attorney's Office. Why do we only have the first and third quarter of 2024? What happened to Quarter 2? Where's Quarter 4? So that's an example of data that exists - it's just not being shared with the public. And the public is the client - the City Attorney represents the city - that includes all of the residents of the city. And we have to make sure that the city is transparent with the data it keeps - and that includes surveillance technology.

[00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Now, in light of Seattle's recent $10 million settlement with protesters who alleged excessive force by police during the 2020 demonstrations, and considering ongoing concerns about the treatment of protesters, how would you, as City Attorney, ensure the protection of First Amendment rights during public demonstrations?

[00:24:56] Nathan Rouse: Another example where I was opposed to recent legislation is bringing back the use of blast balls because - at a time when Trump is taking power for a second term, why would we give police the authority to use what are called non-lethal weapons, but can absolutely be lethal, against people that will be gathering to voice their concerns about federal overreach? This is a time when people need to be filling the streets to stand up for what they believe in, to voice their discontent with what's happening at the federal level - but also at the city level. We can't let people feel fearful of being harmed if they gather in protest. That is an absolutely critical right - and bringing back things like blast balls, I think, makes people feel less safe when they go to a protest. So we need to make people feel safe to come out into the streets and protest what's happening - and that includes everything from the federal level down to what's happening at the city level.

[00:26:06] Crystal Fincher: Ann Davison ended Seattle's Community Court, a program designed to divert people facing low-level charges into services instead of jail. Critics have argued that this decision rolled back a key alternative to prosecution and disconnected people from the help they need. What's your view of that decision, and what, if any, changes would you make to how the City Attorney's Office approaches diversion programs?

[00:26:33] Nathan Rouse: We need off-ramps from prosecution and arrest. And what I mean by that is that - when there is an arrest, there's so much inertia in our society that that should lead to jail and prosecution. Prosecution and arrest and jail are baked into the consciousness of people in our country when they think about public safety issues. We need to change that. Specifically regarding your question, we need to make sure that diversion is the first response to much of the misdemeanor crime that's handled by the City Attorney's Office. Diversion, meaning - no prosecution at all, no jail at all. An example would be the LEAD Program that's run by Purpose. Dignity. Action. - that's a program where officers, instead of sending someone to jail, they give them a referral to LEAD. And that connects them to caseworker support, it connects them to very important services - and that's a way of making sure that we have a sort of community-based response to what we would traditionally think of as a public safety response that involves jail and prosecution.

Community Court was an example of another off-ramp. So, you know, cases that are actually filed by the City Attorney's Office - because if they are not diverted pre-arrest or pre-booking, they can wind up being filed once they are referred to the City Attorney's Office. But just because something is referred to the City Attorney's Office for prosecution does not mean we cannot then send that case into a place where there is meaningful intervention that involves things like mental health support, substance use support, and housing referrals. So Community Court was a very important component of what I mean by off-ramps - off-ramps from the traditional idea of prosecuting someone, punishing them, and, you know, sending them to jail. Community Court was a very important step in that process because there are some cases that should just never be filed at all. And I would file far fewer cases if I were elected City Attorney - I would not file most non-violent misdemeanors because those should be diverted to programs like LEAD. But there's other cases that fall between the things like serious DUIs, serious domestic violence - there's a category in the middle between diversion and serious charges that are filed and prosecuted - where Community Court is appropriate. And Community Court is a place where you can connect someone with resources and then they can have their case ultimately dismissed.

So getting rid of that Community Court without anything to replace it was a huge mistake, especially at a time when the city was bringing back its misdemeanor drug possession law. Those two events occurred very close together. And it's such a missed opportunity to get rid of Community Court without even thinking about what you were going to put in its place. We have so many more resources that have come online over the past several years in King County and in Seattle. City Attorney's Office should be partnering with those organizations to provide access to medication-assisted drug treatment, harm reduction, housing, mental health support - all of the array of things that we know are evidence-based and are actually going to succeed at interrupting the things that the City Attorney's Office is prosecuting.

[00:30:33] Crystal Fincher: How do you respond to people who feel like diversion is letting people off too easy? And having them go through the traditional criminal legal system provides more accountability, more oversight, offers more of a chance that they'll take the offense seriously and not do it again?

[00:30:54] Nathan Rouse: My response is that it just doesn't happen that way. And I know that - when I see these same cycles repeat on a daily basis in the city of Seattle, there is no evidence to show that just because someone is arrested and prosecuted and convicted, that necessarily anything will change as a consequence for that. When we think about something like an arrest, a jail - about booking in a jail - prosecution, a conviction. What is the purpose of all that? What is the purpose of an arrest? What is the purpose of jailing someone? What is the purpose of prosecuting them? What is the purpose of convicting them? And then there's no thought about what the actual purpose of that is. And there's no evidence to show that much of the prosecution in Seattle has any purpose. What about a conviction is going to change someone's behavior if they're very, very addicted on a drug like fentanyl? What is going to change? Nothing. So there's no evidence to show that engaging in this traditional method of prosecution and conviction is going to actually accomplish anything. In fact, the data shows that the opposite is true. When people get stuck in the cycle of arrest, prosecution, jail, and then the warrant churn - when people pick up warrants for missing court - it traps people in the cycle of recidivism. So you actually see the opposite phenomenon occurring, which is that this traditional method of arrest and prosecution is making us all less safe in the traditional sense that people in general think about safety. In order to actually interrupt the cycle, we need to provide those services. Because I can tell you, as someone that is in jail with my clients, meeting with them on a regular basis, someone that goes to court with them - people that are addicted to fentanyl - they don't want to be addicted to fentanyl. This is not volitional, defiant behavior. This is not people kind of telling society to, you know, whatever. This is an addiction crisis. This is a situation where instead of providing addiction support, we're putting them in jail. Instead of providing the mental health support, we're putting them in jail. Those things make the problem worse, and I am so frustrated by that. And the reason I'm running for this position is because I know that we can do better.

[00:33:49] Crystal Fincher: Now, Seattle has reinstated Seattle's Stay Out of Drug Areas and Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution, also known as SOAP and SODA laws, which allow judges to ban people accused of certain offenses from designated areas. While proponents of those SOAP and SODA laws argue that these measures aim to disrupt open-air drug markets and reduce sex trafficking, evidence suggests that these measures may not effectively reduce drug use or human trafficking and could disproportionately impact marginalized communities. As City Attorney, how would you assess the efficacy of these laws, and what approach would you take to make sure that enforcement is both effective and equitable?

[00:34:35] Nathan Rouse: I'll kind of make this easy. I won't enforce them. I won't enforce SOAP or SODA zones. They don't work. They're demonstrably ineffective. Displacement strategies are not going to change anything about behavior - all they do is disrupt and displace people to other neighborhoods. So if you're trying to actually get at the root causes of some of these issues, just scattering people into other neighborhoods is not going to accomplish that. It's going to move the problem somewhere else. And in the process of doing that, you are going to separate people from access to services. A lot of services, for example, are concentrated in places like 3rd Avenue downtown, right by the courthouse. Discouraging people from being in places like Downtown is not going to be successful as a way of addressing the behaviors that are trying to be changed. So we know that the SOAP and SODA zones won't work because they don't have that effect. We also know that the City Attorney's Office isn't even using them for the most part. I think there are a very small number of SOAP and SODA orders that have been actually enforced in any way at all, or even granted. I think there was maybe one SOAP order and a couple of SODA orders. There have not been prosecutions under these laws. And what's important to remember is to back up and the complaints that people had in Seattle that led to the passage of SOAP and SODA - people were legitimately frustrated in the community about what they saw as sort of unchecked violent behavior, unchecked human trafficking, unchecked drug trafficking. The problem is that SOAP and SODA are not answers to that. And it's not honest to respond to legitimate and sincere concerns by members of our community by giving them a demonstrably ineffective method of addressing public safety, like SOAP and SODA. So for all those reasons, I would not use SOAP and SODA at all. And I would pursue strategies that are proactive, not reactive. I think SOAP and SODA is performative politics, and that's all.

[00:37:36] Crystal Fincher: So much of our public conversation around crime focuses on punishing offenders, but very little attention is paid to rehabilitation and prevention. That conversation often claims to speak for victims - but studies, including another major one just released, show that most victims of violent crime actually want more investment in rehabilitation and prevention than in punishment. Do you agree that we should focus more on keeping people from becoming victims in the first place? And if so, how would you use the powers of the City Attorney's Office to do that?

[00:38:11] Nathan Rouse: I absolutely agree that we should be more proactive at preventing people from becoming victims in the first place. An example of when I see that very often is seeing when my clients are victims of crime. I can't tell you how many times I've had clients who have not only been victims of things like assault or theft or what have you, but also economic injustice, wage theft. We see so often hardworking people that are taken advantage of by unethical employers, unethical business owners, have you - and that's an area where the City Attorney's office can really make a difference. We need to pursue economic justice using the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's office can prosecute things like wage theft when it's referred - complaints by the Office of Labor Standards - that's not being done as much as it should be. We should build that out and we should be aggressive in enforcing our wage laws. Wage theft is unacceptable, as are unfair housing practices. And we need to do better in being proactive to prevent people from becoming victims of crime.

[00:39:34] Crystal Fincher: Many crime victims report not receiving the help they need in the aftermath of what they've experienced - whether it's trauma recovery, housing support, or simply being kept informed about what's happening in their case. As City Attorney, how would you work to make sure victims are better supported and centered in the legal process, and not just used to justify punishment?

[00:39:55] Nathan Rouse: There needs to absolutely be better centering of victims in the criminal legal process. Victims' advocates are a good voice for that process, and we should absolutely continue funding victims' advocates who are effective at giving a voice to victims of crimes. As a public defender, again, I can't tell you how many times I've had a crime victim call me and say the prosecutor isn't taking my calls - I don't want this case prosecuted, I want it dropped, please drop this case. And all I can say is - I represent the defendant in this action, I can connect you with the prosecutor, I can convey your concerns, I can listen to you. But that has happened countless times in my experience as a public defender. And what that tells me is that many victims of crimes don't want to be used as an excuse for perpetuating more harm. They want to be listened to. They want to have their voices heard. They want to have an impact on the process. And so many times, victims are not given that voice - they are not centered in the process. I've also been an advocate for trying to bring restorative justice models into prosecution, where we work with the prosecution to facilitate an exchange between the victim of a crime and the alleged perpetrator of the crime to have dialogue. And very often, prosecutors are not receptive to that. So there needs to be a culture shift away from this sort of baked in idea of arrest, jail, prosecution, conviction. Because if we're not doing it for any demonstrable reason, then it's not worth doing because it causes so much harm in the process.

[00:42:03] Crystal Fincher: Now, you previously mentioned that wage theft remains a significant issue in Seattle, with cases like those involving Baja Concrete and Newway Forming highlighting the challenges workers face in recovering stolen wages and trying to avoid retaliation. Given that the City Attorney's Office plays a crucial role in prosecuting wage theft cases referred by the Office of Labor Standards, how do you plan to enhance enforcement efforts to ensure timely and effective justice for affected workers?

[00:42:34] Nathan Rouse: The Office of Labor Standards has been excellent as an advocate for combating wage theft. I remember reading about a big settlement with Chipotle, I think, last year at some point. And that is absolutely critical work that the Office of Labor Standards does - they do such a great job investigating allegations of wage theft. But an important part of the process is if the Office of Labor Standards believes a referral should be made to the City Attorney's Office, they can refer a case out of their office to the CAO for prosecution. What I've heard is that there's not a lot of faith among people that work at the Office of Labor Standards, that the City Attorney's Office is going to act on those referrals for prosecution. So that is another area where the City Attorney's Office needs to be very, very clear with the Office of Labor Standards - that they will be a partner for making sure that this unacceptable behavior doesn't go unchecked. The City Attorney's Office needs to communicate that clearly to the Office of Labor Standards, so there isn't any concern about - Well, if I refer this over to them, is that going to have any effect? Is this actually going to be prosecuted? So that messaging needs to be very clear. The City Attorney's Office should be as strong an advocate as they possibly can to combat wage theft, because the harm that occurs is in the millions and millions of dollars on a yearly basis. And the harm that is being suffered is being suffered by hardworking people.

[00:44:21] Crystal Fincher: The Washington Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit against RealPage and several landlords, alleging that they used algorithmic software to coordinate rent increases, affecting about 800,000 leases in the state. The practice is believed to have significantly contributed to rising rents in Seattle. As City Attorney, what steps would you take to address the harm caused by those practices and prevent similar issues in the future?

[00:44:51] Nathan Rouse: Number one - I think that the City of Seattle should enact legislation prohibiting algorithmic price setting in the housing market space. Cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco have done that. And the City Attorney, as we know, can propose legislation to the City Council - we saw that from the SOAP and SODA legislation. So that's an example of affirmative legislation that I would be very interested in proposing to the City Council - because the price-fixing concerns that that lawsuit identifies are very serious. And we know housing is a crisis in Seattle for for many, many, many people - most clearly, the people that rely on rental spaces to live in Seattle. And we have to make everything, have to do everything we can to make apartments affordable in Seattle.

And number two - beyond the legislation, the City Attorney's Office has the ability to sue companies, just like Nick Brown just did with RealPage just a couple weeks ago. I applaud that because before the lawsuit that was just filed, Washington had joined with the Department of Justice, I believe, in going after RealPage. But what Nick Brown did was identify that there are state law claims against RealPage, and he brought that into the King County Superior Court as a lawsuit by Washington against RealPage. The City of Seattle can do that, too. So the City of Seattle, with the City Attorney's office in the lead, can identify litigation that's appropriate for the city to file. The city did that under Pete Holmes' leadership when the city sued Monsanto for pollution of the Duwamish - that then resulted in a $160 million settlement. So we need to be looking for opportunities to make sure that we're standing up and using the civil powers of the City Attorney's Office to fight for and defend our residents.

[00:46:59] Crystal Fincher: Do you support the creation of a publicly accessible database of corporate-owned real estate in Seattle to enhance transparency and accountability in the housing market?

[00:47:08] Nathan Rouse: Yes, I mean, I think that goes along with what I was saying earlier - just that publicly accessible data is such an important component of running a municipality. That data should be public - the public has a right to know about it - I would absolutely support that.

[00:47:27] Crystal Fincher: The Seattle Municipal Court has faced significant case backlogs in recent years. As City Attorney, how would you address these backlogs to ensure timely justice?

[00:47:37] Nathan Rouse: I would take a hard look at the cases that we have pending - because there are thousands and thousands of cases pending, and I am not convinced that prosecution is the appropriate response for many and many of the cases that are pending. And if we can divert those cases out of prosecution, then we should absolutely look at dismissing nonviolent misdemeanors - because prosecuting someone over and over with a crime like criminal trespass because they are unhoused and it's winter and they need a place to sleep that's dry - you're not accomplishing anything by prosecuting that person over and over again. Cases where people are being prosecuted and there's evidence that that person's not competent to stand trial and the city has that information already - why are we prosecuting that person in the first place? Cases where - even low-level property damage - why don't we set up a victims' compensation fund? And so the business whose window is broken can get money from the city to fix their window? Why don't we just do that because we can't look to under-resourced individuals to pay restitution to victims of crime? It's not tenable because folks that are committing low-level property theft, by and large, lack the resources to pay restitution, oftentimes because they are experiencing being unhoused or being addicted to a drug like fentanyl. So we need to take a really hard look at the cases that are pending and decide which cases are essential to maintain for public safety. Where is the evidence that we need to be prosecuting these cases? And if the evidence doesn't support a tangible benefit to prosecution, they should be dismissed.

[00:49:38] Crystal Fincher: In 2024, City Attorney Ann Davison's office filed a blanket affidavit of prejudice to disqualify Judge Pooja Vaddadi from all criminal cases, citing a pattern of biased rulings. However, the substantiation of those claims were definitely questioned, and the move sparked significant debate about prosecutorial discretion and judicial independence. How do you view that action? And under what circumstances, if any, would you consider using such authority to disqualify a judge from cases?

[00:50:09] Nathan Rouse: I was obviously opposed to the blanket affidavit against my former colleague, Pooja Vaddadi. I don't think that a blanket affidavit under the circumstances where it was used in this case was appropriate at all. It was anti-democratic, in fact, to take an elected official out of the court, essentially - to disqualify her from hearing any criminal case. So I was very opposed to that, as you probably aren't surprised. Blanket affidavits in general - I think you have to think about very cautiously because of that dynamic, these are elected judges. An example of where affidavits are appropriate as a prosecutor - you have to reserve them for situations where a judge is not following the law. And you have to be specific about that. If a judge, for instance, were routinely setting bail at an unaffordable rate and was completely disproportionate from the rest of the judges in that court, and it was preventing someone without financial means from being released from jail, and they were doing that routinely - that judge is not enforcing the law, that judge is preying upon the economic vulnerability of our residents. So that's an example where an affidavit is appropriate. And I'm coming from this issue, obviously, as a public defender, but prosecutors should be concerned about defendants' rights too - because prosecutors represent not just the victim of a crime, they represent the community. And that community includes the alleged offender of that crime. So prosecutors need to be thinking about the rights of everybody involved. And so, if there's a routine violation of someone's constitutional rights, then affidavits of prejudice are appropriate.

[00:52:10] Crystal Fincher: Now, we also asked each candidate to ask a question of their opponents. This question is from your opponent, Erika Evans: You've spoken about being a voice for vulnerable, underserved, and diverse communities. Given that there is a Black woman in the race who has both extensive and relevant experience as a U.S. Attorney and in the City Attorney's office, and lived experience that reflects concerns held by many of those communities, how do you reconcile your decision to stay in the race instead of stepping aside to support her candidacy?

[00:52:44] Nathan Rouse: I'm running for this race as a public defender. And I chose to be a public defender after leaving private practice, where I worked at a law firm called Davis Wright Tremaine. And the reason that I left that law firm was that I was one of the associates that sort of gravitated more and more toward pro bono work. And the pro bono work that I loved the most and did incessantly was representing people that were experiencing criminal convictions - the first person I represented was sentenced to 76 years in prison for a crime he committed when he was 18. I left the firm to become a public defender because I care about individual rights and individual liberties. And I don't believe that someone is defined by one thing they did. And that everyone should be given grace and given a shot at redemption and recovery and rehabilitation. So those are the reasons that I became a public defender. And I can tell you, as a public defender, my clients are highly disproportionately not folks that look like me. They're not folks that have my background. They're not folks that have my economic privilege. And what I've found is that there is so much injustice that's happening in the criminal legal system on a regular basis that's just cruel and racist, and preying upon economic injustice, generational disadvantage. And I'm coming to this race because I am bringing that experience to it. And I'm looking at a prosecutor's office and how to change that prosecutor's role. How can we reform a prosecutor's office, and how can we do it that's in an effective way and to eliminate the pointless cruelty that happens on a daily basis in that system? So I'm bringing a background of representing people that are disadvantaged, that are experiencing harm on a daily basis - victims of crimes, too, not just my clients, victims of crimes, too - who are also similarly disproportionate in their demographics and economic disadvantage. So I think that having that perspective is so critical, because I see firsthand all of the ways that the traditional method of prosecution has failed. And I think we need a public defender in that role for that reason - who has seen tangibly and daily how often that fails and how ineffective it is. So I'm running and I'm staying in this race - because I believe in bringing meaningful change to the City Attorney's Office and interrupting the cycle of sort of pointless cruelty that I see on a daily basis.

[00:56:09] Crystal Fincher: Now, this is me interjecting a follow-up question here. How do you respond to people who consider public defenders to be allied with criminals, and helping to get people off who deserve punishment, and being part of the problem? How do you respond to that?

[00:56:29] Nathan Rouse: I'm a public defender who cares about public safety. I love Seattle and I don't like having to sort of avoid certain areas of the city when I'm walking down the street with my kids. I don't like having to cross the street when there's folks that are using drugs like fentanyl on the sidewalk. Those are crises that are happening on a daily basis in Seattle. I'm coming at this from a place where I can see there's a need for prosecution in certain situations - there is. We don't have the infrastructure in our society to do away with prosecution - that's absolutely something that's necessary. And if it's going to exist - if prosecution is going to exist, I want it to work. I'm part of the system, too. I'm a public defender, so when my clients plead guilty to a crime because they want to get out of jail, I'm the one sitting next to them enabling that process to happen. So I'm part of the system, too. But we need to change it because the current approach is just not working. And I think bringing a public defender's perspective to prosecution is so critical in a place, especially like the Seattle City Attorney's Office, where - like, look, the folks that are getting prosecuted by the City Attorney's Office, like it or not for anybody, they're going to get out of jail. They're going to be back in the community very, very, very soon - because the misdemeanor punishment system does not include things like long-term prison or what have you. So, you know, we have no choice other than to make it better if we want to actually see any meaningful progress. And so, you know, I'm not soft on crime. I want to be, you know, as Kamala Harris said, smart on crime. You know, it's a system that's going to exist, it's going to keep existing. So what can we do with it to make it actually effective and less harmful?

[00:58:59] Crystal Fincher: Now the next question is from your opponent, Rory O'Sullivan, and he asks: My goal in this campaign is to ensure we have a progressive City Attorney who reflects the values of the City of Seattle. As such, I have directed my campaign staff and volunteers to refrain from engaging in negative campaigning against you and I have made the same commitment myself. Are you willing to refrain from negative campaigning against your progressive opponents in the primary?

[00:59:32] Nathan Rouse: Yes. And I'll say this - not only to include Erika, but to include Rory as well - of course. I volunteered in law school as an intake volunteer at the Housing Justice Project in 2010 - that's an organization that Rory eventually became the Managing Partner of. So there's no question that, you know, Erika, Rory, and I all share similar, you know, goals and values and progressive aims for the City Attorney's Office. And so the reason I got into this race to be[gin] with was because I didn't think that Ann Davison was going to be an effective leader for Seattle and I wanted to change that. So I think we all share that goal, so I don't see any value in denigrating my similarly progressive challengers to Ann Davison. So, yeah, I'll commit to doing that.

[01:00:47] Crystal Fincher: Now back to the general questions - this is from us again. One thing that we don't talk enough about, I think, is management experience when you're going into this office - that's going to require managing hundreds of staff, over 100 attorneys. What experience do you have that should give voters the confidence that you can manage the staff and work of the office, work with law enforcement partners, work with stakeholders in the community and impacted people in order to accomplish everything you've talked about?

[01:01:21] Nathan Rouse: And that's a good question. I answered your question earlier about, you know, management. I have not sort of managed a large organization before, so I would be doing that from the current experience I have. The reason that my current experience is going to be successful for that is number one - as a public defender, I just spent two and a half years in the Felony Unit of King County Defender's Office. And, you know, at one point, I think I had 80 open felony cases - that requires an immense amount of management and, you know, serving lots and lots of different people, working with, you know, investigators, paralegals, legal assistants, you know, interfacing with all manner of prosecutors. I'm talking to police officers as part of our investigations, dealing with, you know, judges, juries, you know, every actor in the criminal legal system. So, you know, I think that my experience managing my caseload, I think, is going to be a useful experience for stepping into an organization where there are many people to interface with and manage. You know, I've also - so I've directly overseen staff, just not in large numbers before. So, you know, managing legal staff, interns, you know, co-counsel. I've done that, you know, for a long time in my career as a litigator. I've also worked at, you know, I've always worked at large organizations - Department of Public Defense is a large organization, Davis Wright Tremaine is a large law firm. And when I was a litigator at Davis Wright Tremaine, I worked with a large number of people as well. And I think that I'm going to be able to bring that experience to this role in a way that will be successful.

[01:03:37] Crystal Fincher: Our final question today - for voters who are looking for an alternative to the incumbent, why should they choose you over the other challengers?

[01:03:48] Nathan Rouse: My experience includes both criminal legal experience as a public defender and large-scale civil litigation experience. So the City Attorney's Office has a Criminal Division, and a Civil Division, and an Administrative Division. I think the civil and criminal divisions are going to be places where my experience is very, very valuable. So I have experience in both spaces - as a hardworking public defender, as well as civil litigator at large firms. I have lots of federal litigation experience as well. I practiced at Davis Wright Tremaine, largely in the federal litigation space, for about five years. And then I also clerked for two federal judges - one at the United States Court of Appeals and one in Western District of Washington, here in Seattle. And that experience of handling federal litigation is going to be critical at a time when we're dealing with lawsuits against the Trump administration and the like. So my experience of handling criminal cases and civil cases equips me to do both those jobs very, very well. I'm also, again, I'm not a prosecutor. I'm a public defender. And what I have to offer as a way of reforming the prosecutor's office is that experience - seeing day in and day out - all the ways that justice in Seattle is failing. And I want to bring that to the City Attorney's Office to make it an effective leader in achieving meaningful public safety and interrupting the root causes of what we see perpetuating this cycle of crime in Seattle. So I do think that I am the best candidate for this role, and I'm excited to keep working toward that.

[01:05:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, that wraps up our conversation. Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective with us, what your priorities are, and how you'd lead the City Attorney's Office. As we've discussed, this office holds significant influence over how Seattle approaches public safety, accountability, and civil rights. And the choices made here affect people and communities across the city every single day. Thank you for your time and being accountable to voters and talking in detail about what your beliefs and positions are. And to our listeners: thank you for joining us. Please stay informed, stay engaged, and, above all - make your voice count in this election. Thanks and we'll talk to you next time.

Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky @HacksAndWonks. You can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.