That’s right. There is another GOP primary debate tonight. This one is sponsored by CNN.

You might say that today was a really, really lousy day for Mitt Romney. First, he is dramatically slipping in the SC primary polls to Newt Gingrich. For the past week, Romney has led Gingrich in every SC primary poll. Just yesterday Romney was leading Gingrich 33% to 23% in a CNN/Time poll—the only poll for that race. Today there are five new polls in the race: A Marist poll for NBC has Romney leading 34% to 24%; a Politico poll has Romney up 37% to 30%; Rasmussen has Gingrich leading 33% to 31%; an Insider Advantage poll has Gingrich leading 32% to 29%, and a PPP poll has the Newtster leading the Mittster by a whopping 34% to 28%.

You might say the SC primary is very suddenly a toss-up. (I know the coverage of it has sometimes made me want to toss-up, but that’s different.)

Mitt also had a bad day because Rick Perry surrendered (“you won’t have Rick Perry to kick around anymore”) and Perry endorsed the Newster.

Finally…We learned today that Mitt really, probably, kind-a lost the Iowa caucus to Rick Santorum. The blow is only psychological, as there were no delegates directly at stake. Still….

What saved the day for Romney, however, is the ABC News with Marianne Gingrich (the second of Newt’s wife collection) in which she claims Newt asked her to make theirs an open marriage:

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

With that, we enter the last debate before a pivotal SC primary. Will Mitt finally debate like he is fighting for his life? Will Newt go for more kills against Mitt? Will Ron Paul get to say anything? Will Santorum go after Mitt, the rich boy with a sense of entitlement, or will he go after Newt the fornicator?

Folks…it’s Popcorn Time!

I’ll be providing comments as I can. However, my power is flickering and my UPS is dead. Oh, joy.
[Read more…]

Senate Bill 6239 would legalize same-sex marriage in Washngton state. The bill was recently introduced with 23 sponsoring senators. It needs 25 votes to pass.

Today it just got one vote closer to passage (via KIRO):

Sen. Jim Kastama of Puyallup announced his decision Thursday, becoming the 24th senator to commit their vote to the measure. The chamber now needs to just one more yes vote from a group of a half-dozen uncommitted votes that remain.

Earlier today, the Washington State Catholic Conference came out against same-sex marriage. The reason they give is laughable:

This same law also prohibits marriage to close-blood relations, a clear indication that the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest.

Horseshit.

What the bill actually does (see Section 3) is modify the incest laws by striking phrases like “husband and wife” and replacing them with “spouses”. For example:

When the ((husband and wife)) spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins…

and

It is unlawful for any ((man to marry his father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son)) person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

Update: I misinterpreted what was being claimed, and have marked up what follows:

Clearly, what the bill does is just the opposite of what the Washington State Catholic Conference claims. Rather than adding proscriptions against incest that may result in inbred children, the law modifies to modify extant incest laws to make them apply to same-sex marriages as well.

But do the laws on the book actually refer only to relationships that are for procreation? I don’t think so. The incest laws apply equally to incestuous marriages in which one partner is sterile or in which the female partner is of a post-reproductive age. If a brother and sister marriage is a “moral shock,” is it any less of a shock to learn that he had had a vasectomy?

What about a post-menopausal mother marrying her son or grandson? Remember the priest in Harold and Maude? “I would be remiss in my duty, if I did not tell you, that the idea of… intercourse – your firm, young… body… comingling with… withered flesh… sagging breasts… flabby b-b-buttocks… makes me want… to vomit.”

Shocking? Yes. About procreation? no.

Clearly, there is something about our laws against incest that goes beyond mere inbreeding avoidance.

What a bunch of lying uptight assholes!

It was one hell of a day to be in purgatory. Everything closed in western Washington, there was white stuff everywhere, the National Organization for Marriage threatens to primary some of Washington’s GOP Senators, the Obama administration announced they would reject the Keystone pipeline (for now), the House teabaggers are up to their bullshit again, the DCCC added Washington’s 1st and 10th CD to their list of 18 Red-to-Blue program, Kodak files for bankrupcy, and one of Newt’s ex-wives taped an interview that will be damning.

And all that time, HA was black.

Was it worth it?

Yes:

Members of the Senate are rushing for the exits in the wake of the Internet’s unprecedented protest of the Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least 13 members of the upper chamber announced their opposition on Wednesday. In a particularly severe blow for Hollywood, at least five of the newly-opposed Senators were previously co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act. (Update: since we ran this story, the tally is up to 18 Senators, of which seven are former co-sponsors. See below.)

Welcome back.

And let’s hope we never have to do that again!

It’s Tuesday, and that means it’s time for another evening of politics under the influence. Lot-o-stuff to discuss…the fourth consecutive poll showing McKenna leading Inslee (an analysis is forthcoming), the Walker recall signature drive, the Washington legislative session, the big storm tomorrow—either snow storm or internet brown-out shit-storm, your choice—and, of course, the Republican reality show….

Please join us this evening at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally. We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but a few folks show up earlier for a quiet dinner.

And now a word from our sponsor:

Can’t make it tonight? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally meets every Tuesday night, and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday.

With 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

On NPR’s Morning Edition today, there was piece about the recall drive against Gov. Scott Walker (R-WAI). Today was the deadline for turning in at least 540,208 signatures to force a recall election. There was speculation that a much larger number would be turned in. In response, Walker said (my emphasis):

“The optimist in me looks at that and says, ‘the overwhelming majority of the people in the state chose not to sign that and I earned the trust of the majority the last time.’ My hope is I will earn their trust again.”

This afternoon the Wisconsin State Journal writes:

Democrats and organizers filed petitions Tuesday afternoon with more than a million signatures as they sought to force a recall election against Gov. Scott Walker – a massive number that seems to cement a historic recall election against him for later this year.

Holy shit! Over a million signatures?!?

In the 2010 election, Walker got 1,128,941 votes, and his opponent, Mayor Tom Barrett (D-Milwaukee), got 1,004,303 votes. That is a total of 2,133,244 votes. So, the signature drive may well have collected signatures from a majority of the voters in the state.

Let’s put this into context. Suppose there are exactly one million and one signatures. Then it means the signatures amounted to 46.9% of the 2010 vote total. That’s huge.

In the 2003 California gubernatorial recall drive, organizers turned in 1.6 million signatures (of which 1,356,408 were valid). There were 7,738,821 votes in that election. So, that recall drive turned in signatures that amounted to only 20.7% of the 2003 vote total.

There are differences between Wisconsin and California in the recall process. Wisconsin requires a minimum of 25% of the number of votes cast in the previous election to California’s 12%. And there are different laws about signing petitions. Still, 46.9% is pretty fucking impressive.

In addition to the Walker recall, a sufficient number of signatures was returned to force recall elections for Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R), and four Republican state Senators (Fitzgerald, Galloway, Moulton and Wanggaard).

There is supposed to be a Republican Primary debate starting at 6PM local. I haven’t got the streaming to work yet. I post what I can, when I can.

6:24: Okay…here is a working live stream.”

6:26: Santorum is all over Mitt right now…asking about whether felons who have served their time should get their voting rights back. “No,” says Mitt.

6:28: Mitt comes out against superPACs.

6:29: I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but things are a bit feisty. I tuned in while Santorum was attacking Mitt because a superPAC attacked him for voting to restore felon rights. Sounds like I missed some fireworks over Bain Capital.

6:36: Mitt is asked about flip-flopping and launches into a canned stump speech. Then the feed locks up.

6:39: I get tuned back in with Perry on a “war on religion rant.” Something about “sexually trafficing”

6:42: Newt speaks! “Unemployment should be tied to a job requirement.” Doh!

6:48: Again my feed cuts out and when I come back Ron Paul has, apparently, gone from making some point to descended into babbling mode.

6:50: Ron Paul wants 0 taxes for all..”just like we had until 1913.”

6:51: Did Mitt just agree to release his taxes in April?!?

6:54: Juan Williams as Santorum if he things there should be programs to help raise African Americans out of poverty. Santorum’s answer: “Work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.” Yeah…sure. Just let know the magic formula and have ’em click their heels three times….

6:57: Ron Paul points out that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with him on the drug war and the war wars. Maybe they would agree on a couple of issues, but the paths to get there are very different.

6:59: Newt mentions doughnuts…and my dinner is ready, so I’m going to go eat. Pretty fluffy debate so far….

7:14: I’m back…and Ron Paul is in an anti-war rant…again.

7:15: Mitt is all about killing!

7:15: Mitt claims that Obama is negotiating with terrorists…you know, like he did with Osama bin Laden.

7:16: Mitt seems to forget (or, perhaps, never knew) that the Taliban isn’t al Qaeda.

7:17: Shorter Santorum: Obama caused the Syrian unrest by coming into office and opening up a U.S. embassy there.

7:19: Debate moderator asks a question of Rick Perry that paints Turkey as an enemy of the U.S. Perry, “we need to send a message to Iran, and Syria, and Turkey…” Holy shit, is Perry an idiot!

7:21: Perry: “When the Department of Defense Secretary….”

7:23: Ron Paul gives Mitt a lesson about the difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

7:23: Mitt claims our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Really?

7:26: Listening to the Mittster, Santorum, and Paul on the defense authorization bill (exp. detention of U.S. citizens), Santorum ends up the moderate, Mitt the extremist. And Ron Paul is the guy who reached so far to the right that he ends up on the left.

7:32: Gingrich begins an answer: “It is, as a historian, a fact based model….”

7:36: Mitt and Santorum have gotten so practiced at their stump speeches, that they can spit them out much faster than I can even track ’em.

7:39: Gingrich manages to point out in two consecutive answers that he balanced the federal budget four times.

7:40: Mitt says his Social Security plan is better because it doesn’t suffer the problem that Gingrich’s does: “Fiscal insanity.”

7:46: Mitt claims that he believes that Obama is trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. Really? How?

7:47: Mitt has been hunting for either elk or moose since 2008.

7:48: Santorum suggests that if there were no gun manufacturers in the U.S., our second amendment rights would, “de facto be gone.”

7:51: First Santorum was asking Mitt to “coordinate” with his PAC, now Newt Gingrich is asking him to “coordinate.” Mitt, in fact, spanks Newt by making him agree that calling up the PAC would be illegal.

7:54: Citizen’s United takes a bite out of the G.O.P. field: Mitt, “We all would like to see superPACs disappear, to tell the truth.”

7:57: The debate ends. I missed about 1/3 of the debate, but from what I see, Mitt wins yet again. He exits without a scratch. The post-debate pundits are talking about what an exciting debate it was, with so much “substance”. Not so much. The questions were about 50% fluff, and about 80% of all answers were candidates saying a sentence or two just to lead into a canned stump speech.

— Day of service honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

— Seattle marches in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

— Obama on MLK Day: It’s about service to others.

— January is usually the month I call my family in Wisconsin and complain about having to mow the lawn. This morning I woke up to a freakin’ Winter Wonder Land! Had to shovel the driveway!! Well…how about that forecast: five to eleven more inches by Wednesday!!!

— Speaking of Wisconsin, tomorrow is the day signatures are turned in for the Scott Walker recall drive.

— Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press/Northwest looks at House Bill 2500 that limits contributions for initiatives.

— You won’t have Jon Huntsman to kick around anymore.

— “Pro-life” candidate Rick Santorum: “…scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.”

A stranger rolled into town last week and left behind numerous IEDs—or improvised expression devices—subjecting commuters in our region to the terrors of unchecked free expression.

Once again FreewayBlogger left his marks all over the highways of Seattle:

After taking a few years off, FreewayBlogger is back at it, posting along the highways up and down the West Coast. These days he is blogging about corporate “personhood”, corporate greed, economic disparity, and anthropogenic climate change.

He is asking for your help.

During the later part of the Bush/Cheney regime, he blogged some great slogans like “Chimpeach”, “Osama bin Forgotten,” “Misery Accomplished,” and something with that silhouette of a wired Iraqi prisoner:

What he needs now are relevant, short, catchy slogans for his signs. Check out FreewayBlogger’s newer signs, and if you have ideas for new slogans, leave ’em in that comment thread.

Another way you can help is by doing your own freeway blogging. Check out FreewayBlogger’s videos “How To Reach 100,000 People For Under $1.00” and “How To Make A Sign In 5 Minutes.”

The last time FreewayBlogger was in town, we spent an enjoyable afternoon at my house making new signs—here is my report to The General back in the Summer of 2007.

ONN: Grover Norquist confesses to weeklong drug-fueled orgy with corporate income taxes:

Ed: MT Supreme Court takes on Citizens United.

Stephen discusses Superpacs on Monday Night’s “Rock Center”.

Gitmo: TEN MORE YEARS!

• Ann Telnaes: Gitmo, ten years later .
• Alyona: From Gitmo to NDDA.
• Sam Seder: Tenth anniversary
• Mark Fiore: Legal-easy.
• Young Turks: Innocent man in Gitmo for 6 years without trial.

White House: West Wing Week.

Red State Update: Jackie Broyles Racist Newsletter.

Alyona: Barbour misuses pardon power.

Young Turks: Military torture tactics are creeping into civilian policing.

Jennifer Granholm: How Republicans get people to vote against their own interests.

Stephen: The Obama halloween scandal.

The Republican Primary Asylum:

• Stephen considers a run
• Stephen announces his presidential run.
• Newsy: President Stephen Colbert
• Sam Seder: CNN fudges their numbers for our amusement.
• Ann Telnaes: The GOP candidates look to SC.
• The American Hero’s Showcase.
• Susie Sampson’s Rick Not Romney endorsement.
• Red State Update: Ron Paul loves Blacks, Santorum loves made-up gay son, Pope.
• Actual Audio: Santorum versus pre-existing conditions.
• Santorum: It’s a good name.
• A message from Mitt Romney.
• Sharpton: ‘Heartless’ Mitt Romney favors income inequality.
• Sam Seder: Mitt Romney’s bubble.
• Shuster: Why Mitt refuses to release his tax return.
• Buying votes: Gordon Gekko for Mitt Romney
• Ed: The GOP Frat fight.
• Young Turks: Romney, “it’s about envy.”
• Alyona’s Tool Time: Romney’s 1%er version of a pink slip
• Jennifer Granholm: Obama v. Romney means Obama wins.
• Don’t just take our word for it.
• Ed and Pap: Romney the king of government bailouts.
• Mitt defends greed.
• Sam Seder: Mitt Romney—Don’t talk about income inequality in front of the peasants.
• Lawrence O’Donnell: Mitt—stinking rich, insensitive and callous
• Mitt likes firing people.
• Buzz 60: Newt going “scorched earth” on Mitt.
• Jon: Newt Gingrich—Black community leader.
• Young Turks: Rush, FAUX News rip Gingrich over Romney Bain capital attacks
• Vote Newt!:
• Ann Telnaes: Pious Baloney.
• Presidential candidate advice: Don’t take a picture of your….
• Newsy: The Ron Paul third-party bid.

Alyona’s Tool Time: TSA’s top 10 catches lacks terrorists.

Jon warns Iran.

White House: Michelle Obama Tweets.

Pap: Racism prevalent at GOP primaries.

Shuster with Lizz Winstead: Warren Buffett’s challenge to Congress.

ONN: MN braces for return of Michele and other news of the week.

Greenman: Climate and sea level: An emerging hockey stick:
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Here is the Gingrich-affiliated hit-video against Mitt Romney. It is worth a look, but recognize it for what it is: propaganda from wingnuts.

A grenade has been lobbed. What we have here is Republican on Republican violence. It will probably hurt Mitt Romney even going into the general election. Nate Silver gives several cogent reason why.

It is amusing—particularly watching the battles, but is it right? Today the Washington Post Fact Checker gives the video Four Pinocchios:

Romney may have opened the door to this kind of attack with his suspect job-creation claims, but that is no excuse for this highly misleading portrayal of Romney’s years at Bain Capital. Only one of the four case studies directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.

The Fact Checker documentation seems pretty convincing. But, if you want a second opinion, and you haven’t written off PolitiFact, they promise to take a look. I suspect they will give a similar assessment.

This episode has an amusing lesson. We learn that the Republicans have turned their guns on themselves. The Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was a powerful weapon for the G.O.P, but they couldn’t manage that power. Are you surprised?

This episode fundamentally reflects the increasing acceptance by Republicans of sacrificing the truth, or ANYTHING, for political power. That alone, is a good starting point for attacking Romney, and the sleazy things he says and will say about Obama.

This is another lesson for Democrats: If you are going to do a hit piece, keep it real. Romney has plenty of negatives—some that might even be related to corporate raiding. So use the truth…. As much as I want Romney’s credibility as a presidential candidate destroyed, I cannot condone Swiftboating.

Washington’s remodeled 1st congressional district is getting pretty damn crowded with congressional candidates.

Today Democrat Susan DelBene announced her run for Congress. She joins a pack of Democrats, including Darcy Burner, Laura Ruderman, state Rep. Roger Goodman, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Darshan Rauniyar.

DelBene ran against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) in 2010, narrowly losing. Burner has run for congress twice—2006 and 2008—narrowly losing to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) each time.

The Republicans in the race are John Koster and James Watkins. Koster ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), losing in 2004 and narrowly losing in 2010. Watkins lost to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2010.

Sometime in the next week, Larry Ismael is expected to formally declare as an independent candidate. Ismael ran as a Republican against Inslee in 2006 and 2008, losing to Inslee by a 3 2:1 margin each time.

It is hard to tell who the front runner is at this point. The closest thing we have to a poll is from the Burner campaign. Late last year, they ran it in the proposed first district in order to test the waters:

The pollster did a favorable/unfavorable on the possible female candidates: former state legislator Laura Ruderman, the top fund raiser in the current field; Darcy Burner; and Suzan DelBene, the Democrat who challenged Reichert in 2008, who has also talked about getting in this time.

Then the poll did a horse race check for all candidates; others include state Reps. Roger Goodman and Marko Liias, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Bothell business entrepreneur (and surprise fundraiser) Darshan Rauniyar.

Then there was a horse race question between Burner and James Watkins, the Republican whose going for Inslee’s seat.

The pollster released a highly abbreviated summary of the results:

• Darcy Burner has an overwhelming lead over all other declared Democratic candidates in the proposed new WA-01. In the primary election among Democratic voters, Burner leads with 47% of the Democratic vote, greatly exceeding the 12% the next Democrat receives, and is +7 points higher than the 40% garnered by the entire rest of the field.
• Among all voters in the primary election, Burner also leads all other Democratic candidates by huge margins—27% support Burner while the next closest Democrat draws just 7% of the vote. In fact, Burner draws greater support than all other Democratic candidates COMBINED (27% for Burner vs. 22% for the six other Democratic candidates tested).

• Fully 50% of Democratic voters have a favorable impression of Burner, while just 11% have an unfavorable impression, with 39% unsure. Four out of five (82%) Democratic voters who have an opinion about Burner have a favorable impression of her.
• Burner’s overall name recognition (55%) is much stronger than that of Laura Ruderman (14%).

These results must be tempered by the fact that the new 1st may not look anything at all like the polled “proposed 1st.” Also, the information missing from the polling summary may be missing for a reason.

My feeling is that Burner really is the front-runner, but its almost entirely because of name recognition following two media-intensive campaigns in years when Democrats were tuning into elections. DelBene’s run was more recent, but in a year that didn’t excite Democrats. Name recognition alone won’t translate into a win.

Burner has something else going for her. Publicola points out that she leads other candidates in fundraising^*. DelBene can self-finance her campaign, but a dollar raised by a candidate is far more valuable than a dollar out of a candidate’s pocket, because it builds brand loyalty. Burner’s two month head start over DelBene may turn out to be important.

The Big Problem with so many Democrats (and some very good Democrats at that) in the race, is the possibility that two Republicans come out on top in our goofy top two primary system. With any luck, the field will start shrinking on the Democratic side, but not so much on the Republican and independent side….

^*As Daniel K points out, I misread the fundraising statement in Publicola.

Oops!

Several weeks ago I gave an account of my niece Maria’s struggle to get a Wisconsin state ID card so that she could vote under Walker’s stricter ID voting laws. She made three trips to the Department of Motor Vehicles office and on the third trip they rejected one of her IDs—her birth certificate—because it didn’t clearly distinguish her middle name(s) from her last name(s). That she had two other forms of ID didn’t make any difference.

I mentioned in the comment thread that a memo was uncovered in which a top administrator directed DMV employees to NOT inform people that these IDs were free. There has been speculation that there is a more sweeping directive to obstruct people from obtaining these IDs in other ways as well.

It seemed pretty clear to me that Maria was a victim of some kind of obstruction. I don’t know if the employees were targeting everyone trying to get a free state ID or whether Maria, a young Hispanic woman with a disability, who produced a student ID as one of her three IDs, fit some profile of people for exclusion.

Either way, the results are identical—disenfranchising likely Democrats. The people who have no driver’s license are more likely to be at the margins of society: the young, the elderly, the poor, those with a disability, students, the unemployed, and so on.

The story continues. Last week, Maria’s mother (my sister) had some time off from work, and could personally transport Maria to the DMV during business hours. She had an idea…something to try before going through the trouble and expense (and possibly the legal procedures needed) to obtain a birth certificate that clearly specified whether her first (middle) and last names were “Maria (Elaine) Valdez Holman” or “Maria (Elaine Valdez) Holman” (…as if there is some big fucking ambiguity there).

The DMV office that Maria previously visited was on Madison’s west side. That would be the more well-to-do, lily-white side of town. Perhaps, my sister reasoned, Maria would have better “luck” going to the east side DMV. The east side of Madison is much more culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically heterogeneous.

So last week she takes Maria to the east-side DMV. Maria got her ID with no difficulties whatsoever. No problems with the birth certificate. Indeed, they gave a cursory glance to her three IDs and got down to business. Mission Accomplished!

Yeah…it took four freakin’ trips to two different DMV offices, but Mission Fucking Accomplished!

Maria was lucky. She is a determined young woman. She is particularly determined to vote against Gov. Scott Walker. So she got her ID through brute force perseverance.

Other people in a similar situation may not have the motivation, the time, the resources, the luxury to make four trips to the DMV, just to meet new bullshit administrative hurdles required to vote later this year.

I’m happy for Maria. I’m sad for my beloved Wisconsin. I’m ashamed for what the Republicans have done to her. A video of the experience of another Madison mother trying to get her son a voting ID (and some answers) can be seen here.

Since this is a Washington state blog…let me bring it home by repeating my warning: A Governor Rob McKenna will take actions to disenfranchise the Marias of Washington state.

McKenna, and the Washington state Republicans, have never gotten over the 2004 election. They are convinced the Democrats stole the governorship from them by systematic voter fraud. For them, Washington state is the the number one example of unchecked, rampant election fraud. And Governor McKenna will do something about it.

Besides Wisconsin, new laws that disenfranchise people by limiting registration periods, restricting registration drives, making stricter ID requirements, chopping early voting laws, or reverse felon voting rights have been have been passed in Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida, Maine, Georgia, Ohio, and Iowa. Coincidence? I don’t think so. It’s obviously part of a broader G.O.P. agenda.

Seriously…if Washington state gets a Republican Governor Rob McKenna, what do you think the chances are that our voting laws and rules will continue without some sort of assault?

It may be new voter registration ID requirements. It may be an attempt to reverse all mail-in voting. It could be new restrictions on voter registration drives. Perhaps it will include a reduced window for voter registration.

I hope the people and the press fully vet McKenna on “his” ideas for changing our voting systems before next November.