I moved to Washington state in the summer of 1999. My first impressions of the state were largely positive. I liked almost everything about the area—except the traffic and transportation infrastructure. That fall, as I followed the debate over Initiative 695, my reaction was one of astonishment. “Why, the hell, would anyone want to gut funding for the state’s one serious weakness?”

But I-695 wasn’t about making the state a better place in any real sense. It was an appeal to individual greed and selfishness—a “free ice cream cones for everyone!” gimmick— that didn’t fully disclose the consequences for local government services, the ferry system, and other transportation infrastructure. My conclusion that autumn was that Washingtonians had no freaking idea how good they really have it. Subsequent observations have largely confirmed this.

In February, 2005 we learned just how good we have it government-wise. The Pew-sponsored Government Performance Project (GPP) graded Washington state a B+. From the individual scores, Washington ranked as the third best state government, with only Utah and Virginia doing better. When the report came out, we were in the midst of a contested gubernatorial election. The report seemed largely overlooked.

Last year we learned just how good we have it business-wise, when Forbes’ annual survey ranked Washington state number five in the nation for business climate. And Fortune magazine rated Washington the fourth best state in which to start a business—specifically citing our “low taxes”.

And earlier this week we learned how consistently good we have it government-wise when the 2008 GPP report was released. The 2005 results were not a fluke. Once again, Washington state ranks third behind Utah and Virginia. Our grade improved slightly to an A- overall. Individual grades were A- for money, A- for people, B+ for infrastructure, and A for information (see the full report for what these categories mean and how the grading was done).

Together these four reports strongly suggest that Washington’s government and business climate are near the top in the nation. The idea contradicts two of the three major right-wing talking points. Here’s the list:

1. The Washington state government performs poorly
2. The state government hurts the business climate
3. We are overtaxed for what we get out of our government

The third talking point can be decomposed into two parts. First, are Washingtonians overtaxed? And second, are tax revenues efficiently utilized by the state? The first part can be evaluated objectively by looking at the per capita tax burden for state and local taxes. Information for 2005 tax revenue (the most recent available) and state population sizes can be found at the U.S. Census Bureau. (The per capita tax burdens for all states can also be found at the Washington state Department of Revenue–either source yields the same results.)

In 2005, Washington’s state and local tax “burden” ranked at number 21, or about $3,651/person. The U.S. average was $3,447. In other words, we fell slightly on high side of average, but some $2000 below first ranked New York’s cost of $5,752/person and about $1,000 above last ranked Alabama at $2,569 per person. These figures make it difficult to argue that Washingtonians are taxed outrageously. (As a percentage income—the figure most widely cited in state by state comparisons—Washington ranks 37th, well below the national average.)

What about value? Do Washingtonians get good value for their tax dollar? Consider two hypotheses. (A) Conceivably, we could all be paying a huge premium for our state government’s third-best performance. (Sort of like the lousy fuel efficiency that high-performance cars get.) (B) Alternatively, perhaps great performing governments are also highly efficient governments.

If hypothesis (A) is correct, we might use the information to find a parsimonious set of trade-offs between government performance and per capita cost. If hypothesis (B) turns out to be correct, we can rejoice in our double dose of success—a high-performance and efficient government. And then we can strike out that third right-wing talking point.

A natural way to test between these two hypotheses is by looking at the per capita costs to achieve the grade in the GPP. Since the GPP grade is a proxy for performance, we can use state tax rates to estimate the per capita cost of that performance. Here is how I’ve done this.

For all 50 states, I took the letter grades for all four categories (one each for money, people, infrastructure, and information) and converted them into numerical scores from A = 4, A- = 3.67, B+ = 3.33, …, F = 0. I then averaged the grades to get a number between 0 and 4. This gives Washington state a grade of 3.67, which is the third best score among all states.

Next, I divided the per capita tax by the numerical grade for an estimate of the efficiency—that is, we compute the cost for each unit of grade. The resulting price per grade point is akin to the price per pound when comparison shopping among, say, different brands of apples. We can directly use the numbers to find the best value around in state government.

The results are summarized in this table:

State	2005 per capita tax	Tax rank	Grade	Efficiency ($/grade)	Efficiency rank
Alabama	$2,569	50	2.17	1185	17
Alaska	$4,443	6	1.92	2314	46
Arizona	$3,079	34	2.59	1191	19
Arkansas	$2,902	44	2.09	1392	31
California	$4,055	12	2.00	2028	42
Colorado	$3,363	27	2.17	1553	36
Connecticut	$5,398	2	2.59	2088	43
Delaware	$3,894	14	3.17	1229	22
Florida	$3,369	26	2.67	1262	24
Georgia	$3,010	38	3.33	903	3
Hawaii	$4,338	7	2.17	2001	40
Idaho	$2,926	42	2.92	1004	7
Illinois	$3,849	16	1.92	2007	41
Indiana	$3,405	25	3.08	1105	14
Iowa	$3,273	30	2.83	1157	16
Kansas	$3,415	24	2.58	1322	27
Kentucky	$2,939	40	2.83	1038	9
Louisiana	$3,173	31	2.92	1089	13
Maine	$3,960	13	2.00	1980	39
Maryland	$4,276	8	2.92	1467	34
Massachusetts	$4,470	5	1.92	2334	47
Michigan	$3,494	23	3.33	1048	11
Minnesota	$4,088	11	2.83	1443	33
Mississippi	$2,575	49	2.17	1189	18
Missouri	$2,997	39	3.33	899	2
Montana	$2,913	43	2.42	1206	20
Nebraska	$3,746	18	3.09	1214	21
Nevada	$3,749	17	2.34	1606	37
New Hampshire	$3,306	29	1.33	2481	49
New Jersey	$4,890	4	2.09	2345	48
New Mexico	$3,151	32	2.50	1260	23
New York	$5,752	1	2.50	2301	45
North Carolina	$3,149	33	2.75	1144	15
North Dakota	$3,343	28	2.50	1337	28
Ohio	$3,637	22	2.67	1363	30
Oklahoma	$2,843	45	2.17	1312	26
Oregon	$3,052	36	2.42	1264	25
Pennsylvania	$3,710	19	2.75	1349	29
Rhode Island	$4,191	9	1.67	2517	50
South Carolina	$2,779	46	2.67	1041	10
South Dakota	$2,715	47	2.50	1087	12
Tennessee	$2,685	48	2.67	1007	8
Texas	$3,015	37	3.17	952	4
Utah	$2,933	41	3.83	765	1
Vermont	$4,137	10	2.50	1655	38
Virginia	$3,657	20	3.75	975	5
Washington	$3,651	21	3.67	996	6
West Virginia	$3,060	35	2.17	1412	32
Wisconsin	$3,872	15	2.50	1549	35
Wyoming	$5,251	3	2.50	2100	44
U.S.	$3,447	—	2.59	1333	—

The “efficiency” column shows how many dollars per grade point taxpayers pay in each state. The “Efficiency rank” goes from most efficient to least efficient. The best value in state government is found in Utah, where taxpayers paid $765 per grade point.

Washington state is the 6th best value (i.e. sixth most efficient government) by this measure. It cost taxpayers just under $1,000 per grade point, compared to a national average of $1,333.

The worst? Rhode Island, where taxpayers spent $4,191 for each grade point in their score.

In the individual sub-categories, Washington state does well (results not shown in the table). We are ranked 7th most efficient for money, 7th most efficient for people, 12th most efficient for infrastructure, and 7th most efficient for information. Not too shabby!

The analysis rejects hypothesis (A) in favor of hypothesis (B). We really can rejoice in our government that is both high-performance and efficient. Right-wing talking point number three would seem to be well off the mark.

One potential criticism of this analysis is that the GPP might be strongly related to efficiency—that is, higher state scores may already reflect lower per capita taxes. If so, we should see a high correlation between per capita tax and the GPP score. We don’t. The squared correlation between the two measures is r² = 0.034. In other words, there is only the weakest relationship between per capita tax and GPP score. Here is a scatter plot for visual confirmation:

I feel vindicated. My early impressions were right. The perpetual whiners in this state who claim that our government is broken, inefficient, poorly performing, bloated, ineffective, incompetent, and expensive are wrong—they don’t know how good they have it. They’ve hunkered down so tightly on the compound that they’ve lost touch with reality.

The facts are plain and can be evaluated objectively…Washington state is one of the greatest values around in state government. And, judging by the recent increases in both the GPP scores and the Forbes rankings, Washington is not only a great value, but has been improving.

(Cross posted at Hominid Views)

John McCain’s new chart-topping single:

(And about ninety more media clips from the past week in politics can be found at Hominid Views.)

Bush’s new environmental initiative…

Had enough? You know what to do….

Help Darcy Burn Bush: $

A few days ago, I analyzed a match-up between Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi. The analysis, using the most recent polling data, offered that:

…if the election were held today, we would expect Gregoire to have about a 97% chance of winning the election.

Today, SurveyUSA released the result of a new Washington state poll on Gregoire’s approval. The poll of 600 adults gives Gregoire a 51% approval versus a 44% disapproval, and 5% who are unsure.

Gregoire does best in the Seattle metropolitan region with 54% approval to 43% disapproval. But even in Eastern Washington, she has a positive spread: 49% who approve to 45% who disapprove.

Fully 75% of Democrats approve of the Governor, but one out of three Republicans also approve of her performance. One seemingly concerning finding is among “independents:” 38% approve and 57% disapprove. But consider this: only 27% of those polled identified as a Republican, whereas 30% said “independent,” and 38% identified as a Democrat. It’s a safe bet that the “independent” category is inflated by a number of right-leaning folks who are ashamed to call themselves a Republican.

After a highly contentious, close election, followed by a multi-million dollar Republican dis-information campaign (a.k.a. the election contest), Gregoire’s approval–disapproval spread started out strongly negative, and remained in negative territory for her first year in office. Then, after a 6 months period of nearly even approval (Jan 2006 until June 2006), Gregoire emerged, permanently, from negative territory. For the past 20 months, her approval has remained relatively stable, averaging 51% approval to 44% disapproval.

To summarize, Gregoire’s approval numbers are stable, in the right direction, and typically over 50%. In recent head-to-head polls against Rossi, Gregoire is always coming out on top.

The take-home message: Gregoire’s reelection campaign is starting out in a position of strength.

(Cross posted at Hominid Views.)

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E—some of us show up a little early for dinner.

Tonight’s theme song is inspired by Gen. Casey, who testified before a Senate panel today that the Army is under serious strain and is headed for a train wreck if troop deployments are not shortened: Casey Jones by the Grateful Dead.

There are rumors that the podcast will return to Drinking Liberally this evening.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

The Washington Poll released a new poll this week in the Washington state gubernatorial race. The results are pretty good news for Christine Gregoire, as it shows her leading Dino Rossi 53.7% to 42.1% with 3.5% undecided.

The only catch, as Niki Sullivan at The News Tribune points out, is:

The survey’s margin of error is +/- 5.6 percent. That means any number could be off by as much as 5.6 percent in either direction.

And that means that Gregoire’s lead could be anywhere from nearly zero to more than 20 points.

Well…sort-of, Niki.

A poll’s margin of error specifies a range that should include the true value (i.e. true percentage of the population who say they would vote each way when the poll was taken) with a 95% probability. For this poll, the interval of Gregoire voters defined by the margin of error is 48.1% to 59.3%. But the true value could fall outside this interval—anywhere from 0% to 100%. That the true percentage is outside the interval is only less probable, not impossible.

But even within the range 48.1% to 59.3%, all outcomes are not equally likely. The most likely true value supported by the data is 53.7%, and values near the tails (like 48.1% and 59.3%) are much less likely.

Polls have a margin of error because a small number of individuals are “sampled” in a poll. The same principle applies to flipping a coin. If you toss an honest coin 10 times, you expect 5 heads and 5 tails (i.e. a probability of 50% which is the true underlying probability for an honest coin). Typically, you will not get exactly 5 heads. If you repeat this 5-flip experiment, say, a hundred thousand times, and plot the results, the most likely outcome—five heads—only occurs about one quarter of the time. Occasionally, you would even get 10 heads in a row (about 0.1% of the time).

On the other hand, if you flip an honest coin a million times, the results will be very close to half heads and half tails.

Back to politics. Given that the Washington Poll sampled 300 individuals and found a 53.7% to 42.1% split, we can do a reverse engineered version of the coin flip experiment. We can simulate elections over and over again with 300 individuals who, for every election, each have a 53.7% probability of voting for Gregoire, a 42.1% chance of voting for Rossi and a 3.5% chance of being undecided (i.e. not voting). We can then plot the resulting number of votes for Gregoire in all of the elections.

Here is the result of this exercise in which we simulate 100,000 elections, each with 300 voters:

Vote totals to the right of the red line are wins for Gregoire and those to the left are wins for Rossi. Clearly, the vast majority of the wins are for Gregoire. In fact, she won 96,581 of the elections and Rossi won 3,032 of them. In other words, if the election were held today, we would expect Gregoire to have about a 97% chance of winning the election.

There was another Washington Poll for this race taken late last October that showed Gregoire leading Rossi 46.8% to 42.4%. That poll sampled 601 individuals. Repeating the simulation exercise shows that Gregoire had an 88.7% probability of beating Rossi based on results from that poll. So, we could say that Gregoire’s support has probably improved from the previous poll to the current poll.

The story might end there, except that the newest Washington Poll actually resampled 300 individuals from the 601 participants from October, rather than drawing a new sample. This highly unusual political poll design provides for stronger hints about the trend in support for each Candidate than does two polls of randomly sampled voters. A proper analysis would require access to the raw data, but the increased spread sure looks promising for Gregoire.

Now that I’m a flesh-eatin’, red votin’ member of the Washington State Republican Party, I suppose have some ethical obligation to make these goofballs look good less idiotic. One way to do that is show that there are Republicans in other states who are even more incompetent and corrupt than our crop.

So, Washington state Republicans…this post’s for you!

If you think about it, what can be more incompetent and corrupt than, say, calling a Republican caucus for Sen. John McCain before any real data becomes available to support the claim? How about this: failing to get McCain qualified for a state’s primary election ballot. Seems difficult to believe such a thing could happen. But apparently it has in Indiana. From Blue Indiana:

Now, I’m originally from the 4th District, so curiosity led me to check out who had made it (and by how much) in my old stomping ground. To my surprise, I noticed that John McCain — the presumptive front-runner for the GOP nomination — was just a little short in a few districts, including my precious 4th, despite the fact that Attorney General Steve Carter had already turned in their petitions. I made a few phone calls, and one by one I found out that the McCain camp had got the job done across the state.

Except in the 4th District.

In the 4th District, they are short.

By my latest count, they turned in 496 signatures for the 4th, and the latest IED report for this morning shows them with only 491.

So this afternoon, I filed a challenge with the Secretary of State’s office to keep John McCain off of the ballot. You can check it out here.

By the “Indiana Standard” sending out the same postcard with the same picture to several different districts warning people of a sex offender in their neighborhood…just looks like a mean-spirited adolescent prank.

Had we sunk to the Indiana Standard, I believe those postcards would have gone to Idaho addresses….

So hold your head high, my fellow Washington state Republicans, we’re not the most incompetent!

Do you want to know more about running a successful campaign, political fundraising, political communications, or volunteer recruitment for political efforts?

This Saturday and Sunday a DfA Training Academy will be held in Kent, Washington in the IBEW hall (19802 62nd Ave S, Kent, WA). (Note the corrected address.) The event is sponsored by the Eastside DfA, the 8th CD Democrats, and the Darcy Burner campaign.

Day One is similar to Camp Wellstone—focused on learning the ropes to help in campaigns. Day Two is focused on grassroots organizing in precincts and neighborhoods. Darcy Burner will show up to kick off the training and give a brief talk.

There will also be a social from 6:00–8:00 pm on Saturday with great food ($12) and bluegrass music.

This document (pdf) is the agenda for the weekend. Here is a sampler of some of the training:

If you’ve ever wanted to know the secrets of running a successful political campaign, don’t miss this great opportunity for first-rate training.

To find out more or to sign up, begin with this DfA event page.

The Washington state Senate has passed Eric Omeg’s bill to join the National Popular Vote compact.

Should the bill pass in the House and get signed by Gov. Gregoire, the new law will have the effect of…doing absolutely nothing. At least not for now. But once enough states have signed up—so that their combined electoral votes total at least 270—the law will change Washington’s allocation of electoral votes from the “winner take all” system (currently used by all but two states) to a system where signatory states select Presidential Electors who are pledged to the winner of the national popular vote.

In other words, the compact could eventually lead to a national popular vote—and does so while fully retaining the electoral college in all its (distributed¹) glory.

Currently the compact has been signed into law in Maryland and New Jersey. Illinois and Hawaii will likely join soon—there is a bill on the Governor’s desks in both states. Washington state joins Arkansas, California, Colorado, and North Carolina as states where the bill has passed one chamber. Combined, these nine states hold a total of 146 electoral votes. Bills have been introduced in 35 other states as well.

If you like the idea of a national popular vote, take a few moments and contact your Washington state Representatives.

¹The Electoral College doesn’t actually meet as a single body. Instead they meet in each State’s Capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, and conduct a series of votes under procedures mandated by Congress.

At one point during my first full day as a Republican yesterday, I was overcome by doubt. I had publicly announced my support for Mike Huckabee, but I realized that I didn’t have a good reason—as a Republican—to support him.

I mean, as a Democrat I’d have every reason to support Huckabee as the Republican Nominee. All national polls show him losing to both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. My own analyses of state head-to-head polls suggest that Clinton and Obama would beat Huckabee.

Now that I am a Republican I really should have some positive reasons to support the Huckster. So I examined his positions on many issues and realized I disagreed with almost all of them:

• I find Huckabee’s positions on homosexuality antediluvian. I disagree with his opposition to civil unions, same-sex marriage, and adoption by same-sex couples. I disagree with the harebrained idea of a constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman.
• I am fundamentally opposed to Huckabee’s stance on abortion. In fact, I have voted for Republicans before over this very issue. While living in Pennsylvania in 1998, I voted for Sen. Arlen Specter instead of his “pro-life” Democratic opponent Bill Lloyd.
• I cannot agree with Mike’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
• I think Huckabee is a idiot for refusing to accept the findings of modern evolutionary theory (hell…even the Catholic Church has recognized for some 30 years that biological evolution is real and is not incompatible with Christianity).
• I don’t agree with Huckabee at all on education—charter schools, display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, or “character education” in public schools. Give me a fucking break!
• Huckabee’s promise to replace the income tax with a national sales tax is utterly ludicrous.
• I don’t agree with Huckabee’s anti-gun control stance.
• I oppose Huckabee’s opposition to a government-mandated universal health care system. And I think his ideas for isolating AIDS patients is fucked-up!
• On immigration I cannot figure out where the Huckster stands—it looks like he is all over the place.
• I find the Chuck Norris thing really, really creepy.
• Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister. Even though I was baptized at age nine as an American Baptist (and later became a Lutheran), Southern Baptists frighten me. They strike me as having a high proportion of radical extremists in their midst….
• Finally, I think Huckabee’s ideas of changing the Constitution to be more God-friendly reveal a radical extremist side to the man that I find scary.

In fact, there are only a small number of issues that I agree with Mike on. I pondered my political paradox. And then I fretted…and I fretted some more, and I….

Then, in the midst of my fretting, it struck me!

I don’t have to use rational positions, logic, consistency, or ethics at all. I’m a Republican now!

Being a Republican means never having to say you’re sorry for eschewing logic, rationality, consistency or ethics in a political context. As a Republican, all I need is a positive emotional response to Huckabee—some emotional bond….

That’s me (ca. 1984) and Mike. You see, we share the common bond of the bass. That’s the only connection I need.

So if you are a bass player or a guitar player, or play any instrument at all, you, too, can get behind Mike Huckabee this primary season. Maybe you like Chuck Norris movies…that’s a good reason, too.

And if you liked what a saxophone player from Hope, Arkansas did for America, just imagine what a Bass player from Hope could do!

Vote Mike!

Over the approximately three years I have participated in the comment threads at Horses Ass, I’ve frequently been called a Democrat. And my typical response has been something like, “Actually I am not a Democrat. When I have lived in states that require registration by party, I have always refused—even to extent of being excluded from voting in primaries.” It’s true. I’ve never joined the Democrats—even though it is obvious that my political sensibilities and sympathies are closely allied with the Democrats.

This explains, in part, why I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus. I didn’t participate in the Republican “caucus” either. In order to participate, the Democrats wanted me to “consider myself a Democrat” and the Republicans wanted me to be “a member of the Republican Party.”

But there was more to my non-participation. The fact is, I’d be equally happy with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic nominee, so I had little reason to attend the Democratic caucus. I considered caucusing for Mitt Romney, but the bastard surrendered to terrorism while terrorizing his own supporters earlier that week. So I sat out that one, too.

Over the last week I’ve had a change of heart. I am ready to sign up for a party, for the first time in my life. And given how the Washington state Republicans are in shambles…I think they need me. Really. Yeah…maybe I’ll change my mind in a few days, but right now, I think the Republicans really need me, if only to boost their numbers. So I’m joining the Republicans and I’ll at least contribute half a vote to their primary on Tuesday.

I’m supporting Mike Huckabee. Given that McCain’s “victory” last Saturday was little more than a decree from Boss Esser, I think Mike Huckabee is entitled to a decree on Tuesday that arises from some sort of numerical system that proportionately reflects the make-up of the party faithful (like, um…me!).

I strongly encourage you to do the same thing. Sure…there will be the shame and humiliation of signing an oath that you are a Republican. And you might even feel like you’re lying a little bit. But, these days, the very act of lying pretty much fully qualifies you to be a card carrying Republican! Imagine the great opportunities in being a Republican…like, serving as a Research Assistant on Lori Sotelo’s Voter Suppression Squad™.

Think of your new membership as a trial subscription…. If you find it causes odd changes in your behavior, attitudes, or physiology like, say, a new-found desire to have sex in public toilets, or an unexplainable urge to knock your mother to the floor, or perhaps being turned on by falafel as a shower sex toy, then all you need to do is renounce your membership. Experiment over.

Hell…the trauma and uncontrolled trembling associated with casting your first ballot as a member of the Republican Party may be enough to cause an instant renunciation. If it induces vomiting, renounce immediately and completely; see a doctor.

How do you join the Republicans? Well…don’t go to the Washington State Republican Party web site. You won’t find any instructions on how to join there. That pretty much means you can join any way you want. The usual methods should work—kill a member of an endangered species, test drive a Hummer, drag a disadvantaged member of society down the road behind your pick-up truck, join the Ted Nugent fan club, shoot your neighbor’s dog…. If those methods are too much work, there is an easier way: leave a comment below stating that you are a member. Or, use an even easier method: simply do nothing except sign that poll-book or absentee ballot envelop declaration for Tuesday’s primary election. The WSRP explains (my emphasis):

You are eligible to participate in your local Republican precinct caucus if you are a registered voter in that precinct, show up at the caucus location at 1 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 9th, and sign a declaration indicating that you are a member of the Republican Party and have not and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. It is not necessary for you to have previously declared that you are a member of the Republican Party.

If it works for the caucus, it works for the primary.

But what if you already participated in the Democratic caucus? Can you then vote in the Republican primary? The real answer is YES, although it is sure hard to tell from this piece in yesterday’s Olympian:

“What we’re telling people is just be honest,” said Pat McCarthy, Pierce County auditor. “You need to know that when you sign that oath you’re adhering to the statement of the oath.”

Or else … what?

“I’m not quite sure,” she said.

In fact, no one is, but everyone seems to have an answer that sounds plausible.

“It’s against the law,” said Joanie Deutsch, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s office. Deutsch dialed up RCW 29.19, relating to primaries, before determining that such acts constitute voter fraud.

But ask Nick Handy in the elections division of the Secretary of State’s office and you get another perspective: It’s a violation of the law for which the law provides no sanction.

Translation: Yes, it’s illegal. But since there’s no punishment assigned to it, you conceivably could break that law with abandon and not get any flak.

Here’s another interesting part, Handy said. Since caucuses are party-run affairs, only the parties knows who went last Saturday.

Aside from the parties, that is. And they’re not sharing.

For the final word, Handy suggested asking Jeff Even, deputy solicitor general in the Attorney General’s office and an expert on the matter.

His take: It’s hypothetically legally binding.

It would be almost impossible to prosecute someone for voter fraud, perjury, or the gross misdemeanor of false swearing for pulling a switcheroo, Even said.

And so the question becomes, if the oath creates a crime that’s impossible to prove, prosecute or punish: Why write one in the first place?

“Most people would take an oath seriously,” Even said.

Hypothetically legally binding, my ass. In fact, there is nothing in the RCW or the WAC that prevents you from participating in a Democratic caucus and a Republican primary. It’s true that you would be lying to both Parties in doing so, but lying to both the Democrats and Republicans seems like the perfect rite of passage for becoming a Republican.

I’m not a lawyer…so consider my reasoning but come to your own conclusions. The relevant law is found in RCW 29A.56 (not RCW 29.19 as the spokeswoman for the Secretary of State supposedly “dialed up”). Also check out the appropriate portion of the WAC.

You will not find anything dealing with an unfaithful oath to a party in the primary. The core issue is whether a violated oath could result in second degree perjury (RCW 9A.72.030) or false swearing (RCW 9A.72.040a) charges. But the language (found in WAC 434-219-140) states

(3) Each registered voter desiring to participate in the presidential primary of a major party that requires a declaration shall subscribe to the declaration.

As Sam Reed was so kindly pointed out during the SignatureGathererGate in May of 2006:

Both perjury in the second degree and false swearing require the statement be made under an oath “required or authorized by law”. This is a term defined in the statute:

“An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths[.]”

Apparently, by WAC 434-219-140, even the desire to participate in a party’s primary requires one to make an oath to the party! More importantly, the word “subscribe” in legalese simply means to sign one’s name. In other words, the oath is to a party, but the legal requirement is simply a signature on the oath provided by the party. The oath itself is meaningless (except as a way to join the Republican Party) for another important reason: because it doesn’t conform to the legal requirements for an unsworn oath. RCW 9A.72.085:

Unsworn statements, certification.
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person’s sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct”:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Date and Place) (Signature)

This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgement, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.

Finally, as Nick Handy points out, there are no provisions written into law to punish people who sign the oath but violate it.

All this is simply academic for me, since I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus, and the very act of writing this post is my way of joining the Washington state Republican Party. I can sign in good conscience.

You can become an Insta-Republican too. It’s easy. Simply say so in the comment thread. Or sign that declaration on your ballot and mail it in.

And vote for Mike Huckabee—because real change comes out of joking about razor blades in each hand in a nice warm tub!

Images from the Washington caucuses:

(These and some eighty other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

Even though the Senate sold out America by passing a new wiretapping bill that includes retroactive immunity for telcos that broke the law, the House is standing firm. As a result, the Terrorist-in-chief is not amused. And he is threatening to postpone his trip to Africa in order to sit in a corner and pout:

Leaving aside the problems with the wiretapping portion of the bill, what’s with this telco immunity bullshit? If the telecom companies need retroactive immunity, why the fuck doesn’t Bush simply use his presidential pardon powers to pardon them? I mean, isn’t Bush just throwing a temper tantrum to get Congress to do his dirty work?

Yeah…maybe there has never been a pardon granted to a corporate “person” (I don’t really know), but Bush has played so fast and lose with the constitution that extending the presidential pardon powers to corporate “persons” is no biggie.

Really, what Bush is doing is dodging his own responsibility, and that of his administration, for sweet-talking (or, perhaps, threatening) the telcos into breaking the law. By getting Congress to pardon the telcos, he avoids the scrutiny and scorn that would accompany a presidential pardon.

Lets hope the House stands firm on this and the Senate gets a clue.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of electoral politics under the influence. We officially meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Many of us will show up earlier than that and enjoy the excellent cuisine while watching returns from the Potomac Primary.

Tonight’s theme song is inspired by Republican State Chair L. Esser: Lesser Things by Jars of Clay. Thanks for all the giggles, snickers, ROTFLs, and guffaws, Luke!

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally (I heard a rumor that George Feairng, now officially a 4th CD candidate, may attend). Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.