WSU undergraduate student DiDi Lubash may bring a student-focused, fresh new face to Pullman’s second city council ward.
Lubash’s biggest priority is taking care of vulnerable populations.
“What that’s going to look like in Pullman is making sure that we don’t defund things like public transportation or our food pantries,” Lubash said.
Lubash serves on WSU’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance and is involved in Palouse Democratic Socialists of America. She is also leading the revival of the Pullman Tenants Union.
Lubash is studying Digital Technology and Culture and Gender Studies at WSU.
“I am a student, and I listen to students,” she said. “I care about how and where students live and how they get to class, whether that be walking or public transportation.”
Lubash has been endorsed by current Ward 2 council member Carla de Lira, who announced her retirement in May.
CINDY KOTHANDARAMAN • Nov 2, 2025 at 4:12 pm
WATCHDOG RESPONSE
Pullman 2025 Election Integrity Report re: DiDi
Who Speaks for the Bottom Half?
Why Pullman’s next council risks repeating the same patterns — and what real representation should look like.
Pullman’s 2025 City Council races have produced a diverse slate of candidates, but the underlying issue remains unchanged: who actually represents the people who live paycheck to paycheck, rent month-to-month, and wonder how long they can afford to stay in the city they built?
Despite polished platforms and civic slogans, none of the current candidates in Wards 1 or 2 truly center the daily realities of seniors on fixed incomes, working-class residents, or renters trapped by rising costs.
For decades, Pullman’s leadership pipeline has been shaped by institutional hierarchies — WSU, SEL, and the revolving door of local “civic professionals.” 2025 is no different, but voters deserve to see clearly how each contender fits into that landscape.
️ WARD 1: Between Insider Politics and Corporate Comfort
John-Mark Mahnkey wraps his message in “transparency” and “community engagement,” yet the conduct of his campaign tells another story — one clouded by anonymous online harassment and possible ethical conflicts involving sitting City Councilmembers Eric Fejeran and Ann Parks, both directly managing or supporting his run.
When “transparency” comes from the same networks that distort or demean others, it becomes branding — not accountability.
Bryan MacDonald, by contrast, has run a professional and civil campaign. His focus on economic efficiency and downtown growth appeals to voters weary of dysfunction. But MacDonald’s long career at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL) and endorsements from SEL leadership underscore the broader problem: Pullman’s public policy is still largely defined by its biggest employer, not by its most vulnerable residents.
His version of “business-friendly” may stabilize operations but won’t solve the crisis of affordability squeezing retirees, caregivers, and young families alike.
Watchdog Position — Ward 1
Between the two, MacDonald is the lesser of two risks, but voters should remain vigilant: civility is not the same as independence. Both candidates represent power structures, not the working-class Pullman family balancing food, rent, and healthcare.
️ WARD 2: Youth, Ambition, and the Question of Voice
Trevor Vance, a project manager at SEL, emphasizes “downtown vitality” and “anchor businesses.”
Yet his campaign reflects the same corporate-development model that has shaped city policy for years — prioritizing market optics over livability. When “revitalization” depends on the employer that already dominates Pullman’s economy, it risks deepening inequities, not curing them.
A councilmember whose livelihood depends on SEL faces a basic test: Can you question the hand that shapes the city’s priorities?
DiDi Lubash, a WSU undergraduate and tenant organizer, is the first in years to foreground affordability, public transportation, and food access as moral and structural imperatives. Her activism with the Pullman Tenants Union and Gender and Sexuality Alliance signals compassion and inclusion — values largely absent from Pullman’s policymaking culture.
But Lubash’s youth and lack of policy experience pose a challenge: can she navigate the institutional resistance and speak truth to power in a system historically dismissive of student and renter voices?
Courage and conviction will be essential — otherwise, idealism risks being co-opted by the very political and economic forces she seeks to reform.
Watchdog Position — Ward 2
Vance offers managerial continuity; Lubash offers social conscience.
Neither alone bridges the gap between power and people, but Lubash’s priorities — if fortified with practical skill and mentorship — better reflect the needs of those most excluded from Pullman’s policy table.
⚖️ THE BIGGER PICTURE — REPRESENTATION GAPS
Across both wards, the underlying crisis is representation itself. Pullman’s elections continue to reproduce power without proximity — candidates connected to corporations, campus hierarchies, or political cliques, but few who know the strain of living on a fixed income, managing a disability, or paying half their wages for rent.
Not one platform meaningfully addresses income inequality, cost-of-living parity, or the exodus of low- and middle-income residents.
When the city’s working class, seniors, and disabled residents are underrepresented, “community development” becomes a euphemism for displacement.
The challenge for Pullman is not just who wins, but who they serve once they do.
️ WATCHDOG CONCLUSION
Pullman stands at a crossroads between self-congratulation and self-correction.
To truly earn the label of “transparent” or “business-friendly” or “student-focused,” candidates must show that they can also be community-accountable — willing to speak truth to power, to challenge institutional loyalties, and to legislate for the 50% of residents living outside privilege’s shadow.
Until that happens, Pullman’s elections will keep producing management, not leadership.
#WatchdogResponse #PullmanDeservesBetter #ElectionIntegrity #HousingCrisis #CommunityFirst #Ward1 #Ward2 #Accountability
—
The Watchdog Response discussing DiDi Lubash’s Ward 2 campaign fully complies with The Daily Evergreen’s social-media policy. It contains no profanity, bullying, or personal attacks and is grounded entirely in verifiable, election-related facts and public commentary. The piece focuses on Lubash’s public platform, advocacy work, and policy readiness—issues squarely within the public interest during an ongoing election.
It does not disparage her personally or on the basis of identity; rather, it evaluates her experience, priorities, and ability to navigate civic power structures, which are legitimate matters for journalistic and civic analysis. The language is civil, factual, and encourages constructive discussion about representation, affordability, and accountability in local government.
In keeping with The Evergreen’s mission to “foster courteous and constructive discussion of relevant issues,” the response advances informed public dialogue without misinformation or hostility. It meets the publication’s standards of fairness, relevance, and respect while upholding the principles of transparency and civic engagement that define responsible community journalism.