After 22 years of marriage and a decade of advocacy, I want my Democratic lawmakers to answer for the federal protections they have been asked to champion.
By Darren Raye Fonzseau · Workers Won’t Be Silent · September 23, 2026
My wife and I have been married for 22 years. When I ask my own Democratic lawmakers to stand up for my family, I am asking them to see the life we have built here—and to fight for families still waiting for a secure future.
So imagine what it means to read this sentence from the lawyer serving Washington’s Legislative Ethics Board:
“My hope is that the Board will deny his appeal and he will accept that dismissal and move on.”
Jennifer Strus wrote those words to Washington State Bar Association Intake on June 24, 2026, responding to my grievance against her. Two days earlier, Intake had told her that my protest of its dismissal remained pending before a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board. [1]
That timing matters. She expressed that hope while review was still pending, according to the correspondence.
For my family, “move on” lands as something far larger than closing a complaint. It feels like being told to accept separation—or accept leaving the United States for Mexico to keep our family together. That is what I fear. It is the human reality behind my demand for reform.
How is a family supposed to move on from needing a future together?
I want Representative Julio Cortes, Representative Mary Fosse, Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self, and my fellow Snohomish County Democrats to face that question publicly.
For roughly a decade, I have urged Democratic officials and allied organizations to put federal protections for injured workers and permanent legalization for immigrant families on their agenda. That longer history spans multiple officials; Cortes took office in January 2023. My criticism of him concerns his own time in office. [2]
I have asked state lawmakers to educate their federal counterparts, use their public platforms, organize support, and make these demands politically impossible to ignore. A state legislator cannot rewrite federal immigration law. A state legislator can choose to champion changing it.
My family should not have to disappear into that distinction.
The March 16, 2026 order dismissing my complaint against Cortes deserves close reading. The Legislative Ethics Board dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Its analysis said assisting constituents is “not an ethics requirement” under the framework it enforces. The order was signed by Board Chair Larry Hoff. [2]
That ruling explains the Board’s enforcement boundary. It does not settle whether Cortes has represented my family well, whether the policies I challenged are just, or whether my broader concerns deserve public scrutiny.
The order describes dissatisfaction with responses to requests for assistance. My saved request for WSBA review describes a much broader grievance: eleven submissions between January 30 and March 12 concerning disability-related discrimination, unequal treatment, constituent harms, and federal human-rights concerns. [3]
My contention is that this larger record was narrowed until its substance became difficult to see. The documents presented here do not establish exactly what every Board member received. That is why the complete submission list and the materials actually provided to the Board matter. Make that record available with appropriate privacy redactions, and let the public compare the complaint with the decision.
There is also a discrepancy worth explaining. Strus’s June email describes the ethics dismissal as a determination of “no reasonable cause”; the signed March order identifies lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Those descriptions should be reconciled. The difference calls for an answer; it does not, by itself, prove dishonesty. [1][2]
Strus was entitled to defend herself against my grievance. Her email does not establish that she controlled the Review Committee’s outcome. But I am entitled to ask why the person whose handling of my complaint I challenged hoped I would simply accept dismissal and move on.
The political question extends beyond the ethics process.
I want universal healthcare. I also want enforceable federal minimum standards for workers’ compensation, meaningful remedies when injured workers are failed, and a permanent national commission with injured workers at the table. I want broad permanent legalization—AMNESTY—and family unity, including reform of the barriers created by the 1996 immigration law.
Those demands belong in the same conversation. Paying a medical bill does not replace lost earnings, restore a damaged working life, or give an immigrant family a secure legal future.
Cortes and Fosse are listed among the sponsors of HB 1445, the Washington Health Trust proposal. [4] My question is why the federal injured-worker and family-unity demands I have brought forward have not received the comparable, visible commitment I have been seeking.
There is state work that deserves acknowledgment. Ortiz-Self was the lead sponsor of HB 2105 on immigrant worker protections; Cortes was among its sponsors. The Governor signed it on March 30, 2026. [5] That action matters. It also leaves the federal demands I am raising on the table.
My challenge to Whole Washington supporters is to build a healthcare movement that also insists on injured-worker remedies and a lawful future for mixed-status families. My challenge to Latino Civic Alliance, Sea Mar, and organizations convening Latino Legislative Days is to make those federal demands a visible, continuing part of their public agenda.
Whose priorities get sustained attention? Who gets a meeting, a champion, a timetable? And who is left explaining the same family crisis year after year?
I live in a region that calls itself a liberal stronghold. I have watched political energy gather around slogans such as “defund,” while struggling to get AMNESTY and basic federal protections for injured workers onto the same agenda. My frustration is with the priorities I have encountered and the years my family cannot get back.
How progressive is the Northwest if the families and workers it celebrates still have to fight this hard to be heard? The question belongs before national progressive leaders too, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: where is the sustained public campaign for these demands, with affected families and injured workers helping shape it?
I believe a politics that celebrates working people while leaving their hardest demands unanswered has lost its way. Workers bring more than labor to the economy and more than votes to a party. We bring families, injuries, histories, and rights that deserve a place on the agenda.
I looked to Latino Democratic lawmakers for leadership on immigrant-family protection. Representation must reach across race and birthplace. My being a white man married into an immigrant family should make our struggle no less worthy of their attention.
To Latino lawmakers in both the Democratic and Republican parties: remember the people who opened doors in your own lives. Use your influence to open doors for the families still waiting. Show us what your politics means for a worker afraid to report exploitation, a spouse afraid of separation, or a child wondering whether the family can stay together.
Border slogans and protest slogans must answer the same human question: what future are you fighting to make possible for the people already living, working, and raising families here? A photo, a chant, or an inspiring biography cannot carry that responsibility alone.
Here is the accountability I am calling for: a public explanation of what happened to the full complaint record; clear positions from Cortes, Fosse, and Ortiz-Self on the federal reforms I have requested; and a public account of what they have done, what they will do next, and when.
I am not asking Julio Cortes to quit. I want him to use the office he holds: learn the full record, stand beside affected families, and fight publicly for the reforms we have been asking him to champion.
This goes beyond sending another constituent back through the same intake process. It asks officials to answer for the record already before them.
Watch the films. Read the order and the correspondence excerpts. Share them with someone who believes the Democratic Party should be answerable to the workers and families whose trust it asks for.
Twenty-two years of marriage deserves a future. A decade of advocacy deserves an answer.
“Move on” is not a plan for either.
We call foul, America. Put our families and our federal rights on the table.
— Darren Fonzseau, Workers Won’t Be Silent
This is the author’s opinion and account of his experience. The article distinguishes the records quoted here from allegations that remain disputed or unverified. It incorporates the Board’s published rationale and Strus’s written response; additional substantive responses or corrections can be reflected in an update. The email establishes what Strus wrote about the grievance. It is not an immigration ruling or an instruction to leave the country.
# How Is This Ethical, Washington? “Move On” Is Not an Answer. *After 22 years of marriage and a decade of advocacy, I want my Democratic lawmakers to answer for the federal protections they have been asked to champion.* **By Darren Raye Fonzseau · Workers Won’t Be Silent · September 23, 2026** My wife and I have been married for 22 years. When I ask my own Democratic lawmakers to stand up for my family, I am asking them to see the life we have built here—and to fight for families still waiting for a secure future. So imagine what it means to read this sentence from the lawyer serving Washington’s Legislative Ethics Board: > “My hope is that the Board will deny his appeal and he will accept that dismissal and move on.” Jennifer Strus wrote those words to Washington State Bar Association Intake on June 24, 2026, responding to my grievance against her. Two days earlier, Intake had told her that my protest of its dismissal remained pending before a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board. [1] That timing matters. She expressed that hope while review was still pending, according to the correspondence. For my family, “move on” lands as something far larger than closing a complaint. It feels like being told to accept separation—or accept leaving the United States for Mexico to keep our family together. That is what I fear. It is the human reality behind my demand for reform. **How is a family supposed to move on from needing a future together?** I want Representative Julio Cortes, Representative Mary Fosse, Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self, and my fellow Snohomish County Democrats to face that question publicly. For roughly a decade, I have urged Democratic officials and allied organizations to put federal protections for injured workers and permanent legalization for immigrant families on their agenda. That longer history spans multiple officials; Cortes took office in January 2023. My criticism of him concerns his own time in office. [2] I have asked state lawmakers to educate their federal counterparts, use their public platforms, organize support, and make these demands politically impossible to ignore. A state legislator cannot rewrite federal immigration law. A state legislator can choose to champion changing it. My family should not have to disappear into that distinction. The March 16, 2026 order dismissing my complaint against Cortes deserves close reading. The Legislative Ethics Board dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Its analysis said assisting constituents is “not an ethics requirement” under the framework it enforces. The order was signed by Board Chair Larry Hoff. [2] That ruling explains the Board’s enforcement boundary. It does not settle whether Cortes has represented my family well, whether the policies I challenged are just, or whether my broader concerns deserve public scrutiny. The order describes dissatisfaction with responses to requests for assistance. My saved request for WSBA review describes a much broader grievance: eleven submissions between January 30 and March 12 concerning disability-related discrimination, unequal treatment, constituent harms, and federal human-rights concerns. [3] My contention is that this larger record was narrowed until its substance became difficult to see. The documents presented here do not establish exactly what every Board member received. That is why the complete submission list and the materials actually provided to the Board matter. Make that record available with appropriate privacy redactions, and let the public compare the complaint with the decision. There is also a discrepancy worth explaining. Strus’s June email describes the ethics dismissal as a determination of “no reasonable cause”; the signed March order identifies lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Those descriptions should be reconciled. The difference calls for an answer; it does not, by itself, prove dishonesty. [1][2] Strus was entitled to defend herself against my grievance. Her email does not establish that she controlled the Review Committee’s outcome. But I am entitled to ask why the person whose handling of my complaint I challenged hoped I would simply accept dismissal and move on. The political question extends beyond the ethics process. I want universal healthcare. I also want enforceable federal minimum standards for workers’ compensation, meaningful remedies when injured workers are failed, and a permanent national commission with injured workers at the table. I want broad permanent legalization—AMNESTY—and family unity, including reform of the barriers created by the 1996 immigration law. Those demands belong in the same conversation. Paying a medical bill does not replace lost earnings, restore a damaged working life, or give an immigrant family a secure legal future. Cortes and Fosse are listed among the sponsors of HB 1445, the Washington Health Trust proposal. [4] My question is why the federal injured-worker and family-unity demands I have brought forward have not received the comparable, visible commitment I have been seeking. There is state work that deserves acknowledgment. Ortiz-Self was the lead sponsor of HB 2105 on immigrant worker protections; Cortes was among its sponsors. The Governor signed it on March 30, 2026. [5] That action matters. It also leaves the federal demands I am raising on the table. My challenge to Whole Washington supporters is to build a healthcare movement that also insists on injured-worker remedies and a lawful future for mixed-status families. My challenge to Latino Civic Alliance, Sea Mar, and organizations convening Latino Legislative Days is to make those federal demands a visible, continuing part of their public agenda. Whose priorities get sustained attention? Who gets a meeting, a champion, a timetable? And who is left explaining the same family crisis year after year? I live in a region that calls itself a liberal stronghold. I have watched political energy gather around slogans such as “defund,” while struggling to get AMNESTY and basic federal protections for injured workers onto the same agenda. My frustration is with the priorities I have encountered and the years my family cannot get back. How progressive is the Northwest if the families and workers it celebrates still have to fight this hard to be heard? The question belongs before national progressive leaders too, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: where is the sustained public campaign for these demands, with affected families and injured workers helping shape it? I believe a politics that celebrates working people while leaving their hardest demands unanswered has lost its way. Workers bring more than labor to the economy and more than votes to a party. We bring families, injuries, histories, and rights that deserve a place on the agenda. I looked to Latino Democratic lawmakers for leadership on immigrant-family protection. Representation must reach across race and birthplace. My being a white man married into an immigrant family should make our struggle no less worthy of their attention. To Latino lawmakers in both the Democratic and Republican parties: remember the people who opened doors in your own lives. Use your influence to open doors for the families still waiting. Show us what your politics means for a worker afraid to report exploitation, a spouse afraid of separation, or a child wondering whether the family can stay together. Border slogans and protest slogans must answer the same human question: what future are you fighting to make possible for the people already living, working, and raising families here? A photo, a chant, or an inspiring biography cannot carry that responsibility alone. Here is the accountability I am calling for: a public explanation of what happened to the full complaint record; clear positions from Cortes, Fosse, and Ortiz-Self on the federal reforms I have requested; and a public account of what they have done, what they will do next, and when. I am not asking Julio Cortes to quit. I want him to use the office he holds: learn the full record, stand beside affected families, and fight publicly for the reforms we have been asking him to champion. This goes beyond sending another constituent back through the same intake process. It asks officials to answer for the record already before them. Watch the films. Read the order and the correspondence excerpts. Share them with someone who believes the Democratic Party should be answerable to the workers and families whose trust it asks for. Twenty-two years of marriage deserves a future. A decade of advocacy deserves an answer. **“Move on” is not a plan for either.** We call foul, America. Put our families and our federal rights on the table. — **Darren Fonzseau, Workers Won’t Be Silent** ## Watch the companion films - [WE CALL FOUL, JULIO | Representation Requires an Answer](https://youtu.be/dwAbiltDq5Q) — the documentary addressing Cortes, Ortiz-Self, and other officials. - [WE CALL FOUL JULIO CORTES LATINO LAWMAKERS HUMAN VOICE](https://youtu.be/O9Z_7w2aPYg) — circulated to lawmakers on September 19 with the demand for a plan and timetable. - [THAT’S NOT MY AMERICA](https://youtu.be/EiT5Gw_SiG0) — the companion song shared with that demand. ## Sources and record notes 1. **June 22–24, 2026 correspondence.** Preserved copy titled *Combined Email from R to Intake re Reply.pdf*, held by the author. June 22: WSBA Intake says review remains pending. June 24: Strus responds and expresses her hope for denial and that the author will move on. The quoted message is addressed to Intake. It does not establish an accommodations office as a recipient. Relevant text is reproduced in the webpage’s source notes with contact details omitted. 2. **[Legislative Ethics Board, Complaint 2026–No. 3, In re Julio Cortes](https://leg.wa.gov/media/dsmdwlut/ethicscom202603.pdf)**, signed March 16, 2026. This is a jurisdictional dismissal, not a finding adjudicating every underlying civil-rights allegation. 3. **Author’s saved request for review, ODC File 26-00175.** File titled *2026-04-14-WSBA-Request-For-Review-Strus-Grievance-26-00175.pdf*. The document contains an unfilled mailing-date field; its filename is not proof of a filing date. It records the author’s allegations and identifies eleven submissions. The complete original submissions and Board packet have not been compared for this article. 4. **[Washington Legislature, HB 1445, 2025–26](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1445&Initiative=false&Year=2025)**. Sponsor list and description of the Washington Health Trust proposal. No claim is made here about Ortiz-Self sponsoring that bill. 5. **[Washington Legislature, HB 2105, 2025–26](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=2105&Initiative=false&Year=2025)**. Sponsor list and March 30, 2026 Governor’s signature. *This is the author’s opinion and account of his experience. The article distinguishes the records quoted here from allegations that remain disputed or unverified. It incorporates the Board’s published rationale and Strus’s written response; additional substantive responses or corrections can be reflected in an update. The email establishes what Strus wrote about the grievance. It is not an immigration ruling or an instruction to leave the country.*