City Attorney Tom Carr was visibly irritated listening to Pete Holmes, who is challenging the two term incumbent, as he spoke at a debate yesterday afternoon. Carr sneered incredulously, flush-faced and staring down at the table, waiting to rebut. “I am flabbergasted. I have never heard so many lies as my opponent just made,” Carr said, responding to the accusation that he couldn’t credibly advocate against building a new jail while also prosecuting nonviolent low-level offenders to fill the existing jail. “I’m the prosecutor,” Carr said. “I keep people safe.”

Rich O’Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, handed out anti-Holmes fliers. “Holmes has no criminal experience. None,” said O’Neill. “If he has been in a criminal courtroom, it is probably as a spectator.” He added that in the six years Holmes chaired the city’s police-oversight board, “His tenure has been filled with controversy and grandstanding.”

Clearly, Carr’s supporters wanted to focus on the city attorney’s function as the city’s chief prosecutor. Carr has been tough on domestic-violence offenders, aggressive about prosecuting bar employees suspected of serving minors, and stubborn about prosecuting pot possession cases despite a city law that de-prioritizes pot prosecutions. But the first questions posed to candidates applied to the job’s capacity as city’s legal counsel—in civil suits—a field where Holmes is on solid ground.

When should the city hire outside legal help—a decision to rely on expensive law firms instead of the city’s own resources? Carr defended hiring firms, specifically when a case requires expertise his office lacks or when time is limited. Holmes, who has decades of experience handling complex, multi-attorney civil litigation as a bankruptcy lawyer, shot back that Carr has routinely blown through millions of dollars hiring outside help. Sometimes, even with that help, the city has lost high-profile cases, such as the city’s case to retain the Sonics through the end of the team's lease. Holmes also charged that the law firm Stafford Frey Cooper, which handles the city’s police misconduct cases, has a conflict of interest by simultaneously representing the city and the officers, and that Carr has erred by offering the firm a no-bid contract. “That is precisely the kind of relationship we need to look at,” Holmes said.

• Holmes and Carr

“That answer there really scares me,” said Carr, standing up. He had noted earlier that his father, an alcoholic, died of an alcohol-related accident when Carr was 14 years old. “I don’t talk about this much,” he said. “When I was a kid, police would come to my house a lot. Back then, police would show up and just tell my dad to quiet down.” He added, “I think it would be very dangerous to reconsider no-contact orders and remove advocates from the system.”

Holmes refused to backpedal: “Truly independent advocates could do a better job of protecting victims of domestic violence,” he said.

Holmes's central argument is that that Carr has misplaced his priorities: pursuing low-level marijuana prosecutions, seeking a nine-month sentence for a man stealing a can of tuna (a charge Carr denies), and refusing to provide legal protection to police review board members. As for the "lies" Carr called out, Holmes had argued that community court had a higher rate of recidivism than regular criminal courts and that people had gone to jail for pot. Carr said that no one has gone to jail only for marijuana. In fact, a scan of records from 2005 show that people were jailed solely for marijuana possession. But more to the point, in the three years after marijuana was prioritized in 2003, Carr pressed charges against 75 people for marijuana possession alone. Holmes also says that as the chair of the civilian review board of police misconduct, he was frustrated that Carr’s office fought transparency. If elected, he says, “The first thing I will ask lawyers is, 'Are we restricting access to records for a valid reason or because we are afraid of liability?'”

Holmes noted that Carr's campaign has questioned “My qualifications under the [city] charter.” Carr shot back, “We have decided not to make it a campaign issue.” But that’s not true: Carr went on record twice about the issue, as Publicola reports. And in mid-July, Carr’s campaign manager, Cindi Laws, had been claiming that Holmes wasn’t an licensed attorney, and even argued on her Facebook account that an article in the Seattle Post-Globe was “Proof on paper that Pete Holmes doesn’t meet Seattle Charter requirements for the position he is running for. Bankruptcy attorney still trying to get blood from a stone.” But the director of the Washington State Bar Association quashed that discussion when she produced a certificate showing that Holmes has been an active attorney since 1986.

At the end of the debate, the group (West Seattle Democratic Women) voted on their endorsement. The West Seattle Blog reports that they endorsed Carr. But Christi Stapleton, an organizer of the event and member of the group, says that any press “may have to be retracted.” She said the group’s new rules for tallying endorsements have recently changed and the group has not officially released its endorsement.

Got questions for Carr or Holmes? Ask them in Electionland. They will answer on September 30 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.