Here's another reason why the city prosecutor shouldn't subpoena newspaper reporters to name their sources: The newspaper will endorse the opponent in the next election. That's what happened this morning to City Attorney Tom Carr—who subpoenaed three Seattle Times reporters in 2007 to reveal identities of people interviewed for a police misconduct story.

The Times gave its enthusiastic endorsement to Pete Holmes, a bankruptcy attorney who chaired the city's police misconduct oversight committee. Holmes has espoused a philosophy that the city attorney represents the people of the city (not defends the government at the expense of public interest). "We agree with Holmes," the Times writes.

Lest it go unsaid, this is a gigantic "FUCK YOU" from an editorial board that typically sides with Carr's cohorts at city hall, such as Mayor Greg Nickels and downtown business interests. The newspaper didn't cite the subpoenas as the reason for endorsing Holmes, but they didn't have to; Carr has left an eight-year trail of disgrace behind him. Most notably, the Times says Carr has been an opponent of open government, defending the City of Seattle from disclosing documents in a case that went to the state supreme court and set case law that shields documents from public view.

Nitpicking over this transparency issue may seem odd for the Times, considering Carr's career of misjudgments has made him among Seattle's most reviled public figures. A veritable protege of Mark Sidran—who Carr replaced—Carr has defended the city all the way up to federal court to limit free-speech Seattle Center, fought to increase the rate of prosecutions for pot arrests sent to his office, conjured impossibly draconian charges against bar employees caught in a sloppy bar sting (none of the charges stuck), and he lost the Sonics trial despite spending loads of taxpayer dough hiring a professional law firm to assist him. But the open-government issue for Carr and Holmes is one where the distinction between them is most evident.

When Holmes chaired the police misconduct oversight committee, he advocated for releasing a report on its findings—findings that were unflattering to the police department (and probably look bad for a city attorney who prosecutes potentially tainted cases referred by the SPD and a city attorney who defends police officers' behavior). Carr balked at the report on misconduct, telling board members that he wouldn't defend them if someone sued, and he wanted the report watered down. "Non-meaningful reports were the only ones that would pass muster according to the city attorney," Holmes told The Stranger in June. Eventually, in order to release a substantive report on the operation of city government, Holmes got the ACLU of Washington to promise to defend the oversight board members should a lawsuit arise—because Carr wouldn't stand for transparency in police oversight.

Considering the Seattle Times is a conservative rag (by Seattle standards) and considering Carr has represented the more conservative interests of Seattle, this endorsements says a lot: Carr has gone too far. Holmes will be able to capitalize on this endorsement all the way to the general election, using it to build credibility and woo donors. He has already secured the blessing of nearly every Democratic district organization in town. Now it's time for Holmes to finish the job and flush Carr out of office once and for all.