i'd like to try to reserve four minutes for rebuttal i will first touch briefly on the move this issue identified in this panel's order and then move on to the merits of the case no city action made this case moot if constitutional requirement of narrow tell arraying of a compelling state interest or at least restrictive alternatives really are only two legal questions here one is the subject matter restriction imposed in th for each candidate's own limited forum a reasonable subject matter restriction and that restriction of course is that the candidate discussed the candidate him or herself not his opponent is that reasonable in light of the purpose of affording that candidly a forum at public expense and the second question is does that subject matter restriction then discriminate on the basis of the is that he or she is limited to one stub then that's the purpose of this forum that's provided if i am the candidate for the purpose the subject of my statement is talk about yourself opportunity to tell the voters who they will be electing if they vote for me in my statement it is not me incumbent versus challenger distinction being unseated any less often than races where no similar restriction is and force i think it's also interesting that city council challengers in seattle do consider  important to getting themselves known to the voters interestingly also our ethics and elections commission has shown itself not to be inclined against challengers at all and your forty two  district court panel here in seattle we have uniformly high quality district court bench it is very unusual it's very unusual that i find myself disagreeing with anything that i just record has done and it is difficult to find myself state law very clearly defines the purpose of this forum which is permitted for local governments to adopt and that is it is to allow the candidate to talk about him or her self the district court came up with a fear first off of course that state statute is not being challenged in this action that challenge was withdrawn still constitutional district court has the idea that apparently you could necessarily refer to someone else in order to introduce yourself if that's the mechanism in the standard that we're supposed to rule we think the state law and the city's rule both reinforce the very narrow purpose of the voter's pamphlet which is find out who you would be electing if you vote for  mean the second problem i think with the just record opinion and with mr casseroles argument fundamentally is that they would like to redefine the subject of this limited four hundred word forum but it is not the purpose of the four hundred word for desire it is up to the legislative body that provides the forum to determine its subject in this case we think that limitation is reasonable and does not discriminate on the basis of candidates viewpoint i would like to i would also i would agree that if that is a problem with the district court's ruling or not he's a very easily you might have an application i don't believe that at all that we had an application problem as concerns the top of that page he said that he wouldn't run for more than three terms because he lacked experience in the voters bought into it never cut and ran in reference to folk and six years later after another have broken promise mathurin for more than three terms his opponent ran suspect the city tonight and it has not attempted to explain how a prohibition on one off topic subject somehow forces a candidate dress a candidate to speak about what they think the candidates  transportation it simply makes no sense held in the schaefer case for example that whether or not the particular candidate the plaintiff challenging the restriction or that they restricted activity was or was not going to be a candidate one way of encouraging or forcing candidates to obey the state law which says they talk only about themselves the purpose of this forum is not to say who you're not it's to say who you are because if you t i do think that those statements are contrary to the state law and that seems to me to be in laughs now keep in mind the number of candidates that we have running at any time for mayor or city council is quite these particular race is pretty clear on well that the two mr sidran is because well we're the first as far as we know to draw the executive directors attention to what they perceive as an unconstitutionality in the local ordinance if you were attention to this as submitted alternative statements because of the quick timelines here if this thing happens if this happens really fast then once you do her attention to it they spent a lot of time proofreading and sending formatting turning bold type  are a legislator at the local level it would be a very commonsense reasonable approach to say we are not going to spend public money if what we have to do in our forum is allow each candidate with this one hundred words to talk about anything