Everett District 4 candidate Niko Battles eligibility put under microscope

Snohomish, WALocal News

Niko Battle, a candidate for Everett City Council District 4, asserts they are eligible for the position despite a report questioning their status. They claim to have lived in the district for over six months and registered to vote on May 7, 2025. The city is reviewing its laws to clarify eligibility requirements, which state candidates must be registered voters and residents for at least one year before the election. The primary election is set for August 5, with only the top two candidates proceeding. Battle alleges an opponent provided information to MyEverettNews to undermine their campaign, a claim the outlet's owner refutes.

The city has sent letters to all candidates to confirm their residency under penalty of perjury. Battle's voter registration indicates their temporary residence at a friend's apartment, though they lack documentation. The situation highlights the complexities of local election eligibility rules and the scrutiny candidates face.

Related Articles

Snohomish County Extends Outdoor Burning Ban

Snohomish County has extended its Stage 1 outdoor burning ban until September 28, 2025, prohibiting residential burning except for recreational and cooking fires. The ban is a precaution against wildfire risks, particularly amid anticipated dry weather conditions. A Red Flag Warning will halt all outdoor burning if issued.

Snohomish County Extends Outdoor Burning Ban

Snohomish County extends its Stage 1 outdoor burning ban until September 28, 2025, due to high fire danger. The ban prohibits all residential burning in unincorporated areas and specific cities, allowing only recreational and cooking fires under strict conditions. Public safety officials urge caution with outdoor fires amid ongoing dry weather risks.

Appeals court upholds decision against SRFR Firefighter 8

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision against Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, siding with the agency in a religious discrimination case involving eight firefighters who refused the COVID-19 vaccine. The firefighters, who sought back pay after being placed on unpaid leave, argued that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs. Attorneys representing the firefighters criticized the ruling, stating it jeopardizes religious freedom protections.