A Seattle news roundup: a record-dry October and a chilly Halloween, federal claims about noncitizen voting, and MayDay USA’s appeal against the city.
Seattle bids farewell to an unusually dry October: Rain returns, but Halloween looks chilly
Seattle is wrapping up one of the driest Octobers on record, and even the rain returning at the end of the month is unlikely to change the picture dramatically. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) recorded just 0.20 inches of precipitation over the weekend, bringing the monthly total to a modest 0.28 inches, compared with a normal of just under four inches. As meteorologist Ted Buehner put it in MyNorthwest, it is only a drop in the bucket: a weekend front helped narrow the deficit, but not by much. Another weather system is expected this week, moving down the British Columbia coast midweek and potentially bringing half an inch of rain or more before drier weather returns toward the end of the week. Even with that rain, October will remain among the driest in Seattle’s more than 130 years of record-keeping.
The historical context makes the picture especially striking. The all-time record for dryness belongs to October 1895, when just 0.02 inches fell downtown. Second place goes to 1987, with 0.31 inches at SEA, followed by 2002 (0.67 inches), 1936 (0.88 inches) and 1978 (0.98 inches). The additional rainfall expected now will likely bring this month’s total close to the 2002 figure. The situation is similar elsewhere in western Washington: Olympia received just 0.58 inches, while its record low is 0.27 inches, set in 1917. The dry Octobers of 1987, 2002 and 1978 brought 0.39, 0.46 and 0.78 inches, respectively. Rain late this week could push this year’s total past the 1978 mark.
The moisture will also bring a noticeable drop in temperatures. Highs across western Washington will barely reach the 50s, while mountain snow will fall close to nearly all of the Cascade passes—and in some places as low as 3,500 feet. On clear nights, temperatures will dip into the 30s and 40s. Traditionally cold spots such as the South Sound and Arlington could see temperatures near freezing and frost, so plants will need to be covered or brought indoors. Monday, October 26, will also mark Seattle’s final 6 p.m. sunset of the year as the nights continue to lengthen.
As for Halloween itself, forecasters are cautiously but relatively optimistic: a ridge of high pressure is expected to settle over western Washington toward the end of the week, bringing dry but chilly weather. Saturday should be cool, with highs in the low to mid-50s, and evening temperatures falling into the 40s. In other words, young candy collectors should bundle up—the neighborhood rounds are likely to be a chilly affair.
A couple of details help put the forecast in perspective. All temperatures in the article are given in Fahrenheit: 50°F is about 10°C, 40°F is around 4–5°C, and 30°F is just below freezing, which explains the risk of frost. Snow in the Cascades at 3,500 feet (about 1,070 meters) in late October is a clear sign that winter has arrived in the mountains, even as autumn lingers in the valleys. Finally, “higher pressure aloft” refers to a region of denser, heavier air in the upper atmosphere. As it sinks, it suppresses cloud and precipitation formation, resulting in the dry Halloween forecast.
The main takeaways are clear: October 2025 will go down as one of Seattle’s five driest on record, the precipitation deficit remains enormous, and the return of rain will only slightly ease the anomaly. Meanwhile, colder weather, mountain snowfall and overnight frost call for practical precautions, from protecting plants to dressing children warmly for Halloween. For meteorologists and public services, it is also a warning of potential early frosts and a reminder to monitor road conditions in mountain areas.
Dispute over noncitizen voting: Washington counters federal claims with data and court cases
Eight days before the midterm elections, federal officials are holding a press conference in Seattle about alleged cases of noncitizens registering to vote in Washington state. Against this backdrop, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs spoke to Fox 13 Seattle, effectively laying out his defense: the statistics do not support the federal claims, and the campaign around “noncitizen voting” appears political. He said the U.S. Attorney’s Office had indeed contacted election officials and that the Justice Department is sending observers to King County, but the details remain unclear. Hobbs’s main counterargument is the data: from 1982 to 2025, the state recorded just 15 cases of noncitizens voting, which he puts at 0.0000006%. By contrast, he says, a much more serious problem is the recent change in how USPS processes mail, which has effectively prevented about 20,000 people from having their votes counted. Hobbs also faulted the federal government for its aggressive, confrontational approach. According to him, the Department of Homeland Security has cut back on cybersecurity support, while attention is being disproportionately focused on an issue that “doesn’t yield much.” He also offered a political explanation for what is happening: with Republicans at risk of losing their majorities in both chambers of Congress, a narrative is being created that blames the lack of legislation—and the failure to pass the SAVE Act—for the problem. Hobbs stressed that even if the president or federal government says it wants to impound ballots, running elections remains a constitutional right of the states. He also said the Justice Department has lost every lawsuit related to election data—27 cases dismissed and no victories for the department—while the state, backed by Attorney General Nick Brown, has won all of its cases. As for turnout, more than 700,000 of the 5.1 million ballots sent out have already been returned, or about 15%—roughly one percentage point higher than at the same point in 2022. Sixty-eight percent of returned ballots came through official drop boxes, which Hobbs considers a particularly good sign because those ballots are guaranteed to reach the county. Because of changes to postmarking, under which a mark may be applied anywhere from three to seven days later, voters are being urged not to rely on the mail: they should use drop boxes and track their ballots at votewa.gov. In other words, ahead of the 2026 elections, the state finds itself caught between a federal investigation, political pressure and a legal record that has so far favored Washington.
A few terms need explaining. “Noncitizen voting” refers to cases in which someone who is not a U.S. citizen—and therefore not eligible to vote in federal elections—casts a ballot. It is a criminal offense, but state statistics show that it is extremely rare. “Impounding ballots” means seizing or blocking ballots that have already been cast before they are counted. Hobbs rejects the possibility of such a move, citing the states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections. The SAVE Act is a proposed law that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Supporters say it would close loopholes; opponents argue it would restrict access to voting. Finally, the USPS rule change means a postmark date no longer guarantees that a ballot will arrive on time. The recommendation to use drop boxes is therefore not a formality, but a way to avoid having votes go uncounted. The article’s key points are these: the state’s data do not support federal claims of widespread noncitizen registration; Hobbs believes the issue is being raised for electoral reasons; the courts have so far sided with the state; and the main practical risk for voters is not the specter of noncitizens voting, but real mail delays. That is why the state is urging people to vote early and use drop boxes. In an interview with Fox 13 Seattle, Hobbs summed it up: “Washingtonians know that in this state, your vote and your election system are protected, accessible and transparent.”
Free speech or reluctance to return: Why a Christian group is suing Seattle again
What began as a dispute over where to hold a prayer gathering has become a complex legal question: can a religious group demand changes to a city’s rules if it has no plans to return to that city anytime soon? At first glance, the case may look like a clash of values—conservative Christians versus Seattle’s LGBTQ+ community. But on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered a much more technical, though no less important, question: what gives a person or organization the right to sue the government over a law that may never again be applied to them personally?
MayDay USA, which includes a Washington state pastor and leaders of the Christian movement Her Voice Movement, also known as Tetelestial Ministries, held a “worship and prayer” event in Seattle in May 2025. They initially wanted to gather on Pike Street, in the heart of the city’s LGBTQ+ neighborhood. City officials denied the request, saying the event was too large to be held safely on that street, and instead offered Cal Anderson Park. The group obtained a permit for the park but encountered protests: people threw water balloons filled with urine and bottles of water at participants, police asked the organizers to end the event, and then-Mayor Bruce Harrell issued a press release that same day calling it an “extremist right-wing rally.” In September 2025, the group filed suit, alleging violations of the First Amendment rights to free speech, peaceful assembly and religious practice, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The organizers sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the city’s permitting system, arguing that they were denied their preferred location because of the religious content of their views.
But in February, U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein, appointed by Jimmy Carter, issued a mixed ruling. She found that the group lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction because it had not shown a real risk that the city’s rules would be applied to it again. In other words, the court did not assess whether the permitting process itself was good or bad. Instead, it asked whether the plaintiffs had a right to raise the issue at all at this point.
On Monday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel appeared to share those concerns. Judge Eric Miller, appointed by Donald Trump, asked the group’s lawyer, Daniel Schmid of Liberty Counsel: “If there’s no intention to have another demonstration in Seattle, then Seattle’s permitting scheme is not injuring you. How do we fill what looks like a gap in the complaint?” Schmid acknowledged that the group had no specific plans for another Seattle event, but argued that its history—13 events over two years—showed that it would return. “Since its inception, it has been focused on speaking on the issues of the day,” he said. Miller countered: “That’s true, but there are lots of venues where you can speak on the issues of the day, and many of them are not public demonstrations in the city limits of Seattle.”
The lawyer tried to add an argument often described in legal circles as the sincerity of religious belief. He said the plaintiffs believe their souls will be eternally condemned if they do not speak about their beliefs. He also noted that the group spoke in Los Angeles a week after people threw urine-filled balloons and water bottles at children at its Seattle event. But Judge Morgan Christen, appointed by Barack Obama, responded firmly: “We don’t doubt the sincerity of those beliefs, but there’s a requirement for prospective injunctive relief, and that’s what we’re seeking.” A prospective injunction bars a defendant’s future conduct rather than compensating for past harm. To obtain one, a plaintiff must show that the violation is likely to happen again and affect them specifically. Without a concrete intention to return to Seattle, that argument falls apart.
The city, for its part, argued that even if the group establishes standing, the permitting system itself is constitutional. “At its core, this appeal comes down to one question: does the city’s special events permitting ordinance give the special events committee unbridled discretion? It does not,” said Jessica Leizer of the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. The city says the denial was based on public health, safety and welfare—not the applicants’ point of view. The event was simply too large to be held safely on Pike Street. “I think it’s pretty axiomatic that we don’t want portable toilets next to food, and that has nothing to do with the message or with a heckler’s veto,” she added. A “heckler’s veto” is when authorities suppress speech not because it is unlawful, but because opponents might react aggressively. The city maintains that this was a matter of logistics, not the crowd’s reaction.
The key legal issue is what is known as “unbridled discretion.” Under U.S. constitutional law, a permitting system may violate the First Amendment if officials have excessively broad and vague powers to decide who gets permission to hold a public event, even without proof of specific discrimination. The reason is that unchecked discretion creates a risk of censorship and can deter people from speaking out for fear of being denied a permit. The group argues that in Seattle, permits are effectively distributed not just by a government body but also by private actors, which, in the plaintiffs’ view, makes the system particularly vulnerable to challenge. But the panel—which also includes Judge Milan Smith, appointed by George W. Bush—did not delve into the substance of this dispute, because the question of standing must be resolved first.
More broadly, the case illustrates a familiar tension between two principles: courts should not issue abstract advisory opinions about laws that do not affect anyone in particular, but if a rule truly gives officials unchecked power, waiting until someone is harmed may be too late, as people could remain silent out of fear. The appeals court has not yet said when it will rule. If the panel agrees with the district court, the group could file a new suit, but only if it can show a genuine intention to hold another event in Seattle. If the court finds that the group has standing and sends the case back for review, the dispute will shift to whether the city’s permitting process is constitutional. For Seattle, that could mean rewriting its rules; for the group, a chance to secure its preferred venue; and for observers, another example of how, in American law, procedural hurdles can matter as much as the values the parties are fighting for.
