The Seattle P-I chimes in tomorrow with an editorial I could have written myself, if… you know… I was a bit more even-handed… and not quite so verbose… and, um… on the P-I editorial board:
Strangely, key elements of the Republicans’ “real reform” have little relevance to the issues in last fall’s controversial election. Included in the price for Republican votes in the two-thirds majority required to move the primary have been a massive voter re-registration and requirements for photo identification, birth certificates or passports for voter registration and voting at the polls.
Among the problems that cropped up in the November election, there were hardly widespread allegations of voters claiming to cast ballots for someone they’re not or of non-citizens attempting to vote. The Republican proposals seem to echo last fall’s attempts across the country to intimidate certain groups of voters.
Oh… and as Jon helpfully pointed out in the previous thread, another good reason not to purge the rolls, is that it would violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. So, Republicans are fighting for an illegal provision that fixes a problem that doesn’t exist.
Come on guys… quit the grandstanding and move the primary.
Isn’t Sam Reed championing the moved primary date? Isn’t he a Republican?
Oh, wait, wait… he’s been a bad boy and not fallen in line behind the Party. Can’t support his recommendations. Bad Reed.
OHMYGOD!!
The P-I said this.
Shocking!!..NOT!
The P-I has turned their back on everything Logan et al have done. Now they criticze the R’s.
The P-I has ZERO credibility in this Election stuff.
The Times (Ervin and Postman) much, much better coverage.
Wow – Cynical praise for Postman. Wonderments abound.
C @ 2
Sam Reed, as Secretary of State, is our state’s top-ranking elections officer. He ranks moving the primary to an earlier date as our state’s single most important reform. One that is especially important to military voters.
Cynical, read the fine print! This isn’t about Dean Logan or P-I vs. Times news coverage. This is about MOVING THE PRIMARY DATE so there is enough time between the primary and general elections for election officials to cope with a close primary result! This is a reform that BOTH parties should want and holding this legislation hostage invites a future debacle.
If that happens, the Republicans in the legislature will be to blame — and let us hear no more complaining from Republicans about disenfranchised military voters, because we will tell them it was the Republicans who disenfranchised them!
Maybe the P-I should blame former Governor Gary Locke for vetoing the top two primary back on April 1, 2004 — the creative partial veto that totally changed the meaning of the complex primary legislation improvidently crafted by the legislature.
Because of this creative veto, it was necessary to put Initiative 872 on the ballot to enact the top two primary. Section 8 of Initiative 872 basically reiterated previously existing law — which requires the primary in September (and usually seven weeks before the general election).
Under Article II, Section 1(c) of the state constitution, any law adopted by the voters (whether by initiative or referendum) cannot be amended or repealed by the legislature within two years of its passage, unless two-thirds of the total membership of each house votes in favor of such a change.
Since the voters approved a September primary election date last November (even though it was basically re-adopting the law that already existed), any change to this now requires 2/3 of all the legislators to approve. If Locke hadn’t forced the matter into an initiative last by his veto last spring — a veto which the Seattle P-I approved of by the way — then only a simple majority would be required.
By the way Goldy — it would not violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require that voters show picture identification when voting at the polls. Many states — including Florida — require picture ID’s of voters at the poll. (Florida also greatly restricts absentee voting, instead allowing people to vote early in person at selected locations, and requiring notarization or witnessing on absentee ballots cast by mail.)
RP @ 5 – I’m sure we can keep going back in time to find case after case of coulda, shoulda, wouldas, but that doesn’t do us any good today, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Richard @ 5
How could Gov. Locke have possibly foreseen what would transpire in the November election? But even if he could have, the top-two primary was a terrible idea that he should have vetoed anyway.
It seems to me if the state required photo IDs, then the state should be responsible for providing IDs free of charge, or paying for passports. At $97 per, the cost of providing each registered voter with a passport is around $340 million. This will require a tax increase. Would those of you pushing this ID proposal please tell us which tax you would like increased.
Passports??
Red Herring-
Not necessary for photo ID
Typical LEFTIST fear-mongering and overstatement and overkill to solve a simple problem.
Alan @ 8
“This will require a tax increase.”
Why does that sound so familiar? Maybe because it’s all we’ve heard for the last decade from the Democrats running this state. Just keep repeating it, Alan, and enjoy the feeling.
Typical WINGNUT, propose illegal solutions to problems or ones intentionally designed to disenfranchise specific voting demographics and then bitch when people refuse the kool aid.
Hey Alan, Washington State’s share of Iraq war costs is over $7 billion. If you don’t like increased taxes here then talk to the feds.
Er, excuse me, 12 was to zip.
Typical lefty, spreading lies like “intentionally designed to disenfranchise specific voting demographics” when he disagrees with something. INTENT is a strong word, pretty subtle the way you slipped it in there.
Actually it wasn’t subtle, and I meant it. But so did they!
12
Pretty smooth shift of topic there, Alan. And by your comments I take it that you (along with the rest of the Progressive crowd) support the Democrats cynical raising of the most regressive of our state taxes, without even pausing to discuss real tax reform? You guys got your increased spending, you don’t care whose pocket the money comes from. You only care whose it goes into, they all vote Democrat!
Perhaps this newest regression of our taxes was “intentionally designed” to appease the rich elite lefties who the Democrat party constantly brown-noses?
zip @ 16
I’m not Alan, and I’m not a fan of raising taxes but I like debt even less.
Richard @5,
Of course, I never implied that requiring a picture ID violated federal law. I said that purging the rolls and requiring everybody to re-register violated the law.
That said, blaming Locke for the R’s blocking moving the primary is like blaming the wing of a butterfly.
I guess we wouldn’t want to purge those felons, illegal aliens and dead voters. After all, they are the Democrats base.
Goldy @ 18
Sam Reed, and Ralph Munro before him, had been urging an earlier primary for quite a number of years. With our large number of mail ballot voters, and simply requiring a postmark by election day, the turnaround time in Washington is rather negligible after the primary results are certified.
So if Gary Locke had shown any REAL leadership on the election reform issue, he would have been supporting such a change, and advocated an earlier primary — regardless. In 2004, Washington was pretty much forced to adopt some new kind of primary system. This would have been the perfect opportunity to change not only the TYPE of primary, but the DATE of the primary as well.
In fact, Locke could have threatened to VETO the ENTIRE primary election package — regardless of what form the legislature passed it in — if it did not include a change in the primary election date.
That way — instead of one-third of the members of a single house being able to block a change in the primary election date (thanks to I-872 having to be passed) — Locke could have forced the primary election date to be changed, unless two-thirds of the members of both houses wanted to override his veto.
Richard Pope: OK, granted, if Locke hadn’t partially vetoed the top-two primary bill last year, things would be easier now. But wishful thinking won’t make it so.
The more important question is why do the state Republicans oppose an earlier primary?
The more important question is why do the state Republicans oppose an earlier primary?
So they can tell everyone that the democrats didn’t accomplish anything….anything at all.
Cyn @ 9
What is the “problem” you’re trying to solve, C? Can you point to even one illegal vote in this last election that ID would have prevented? It wouldn’t have stopped any of the felons, because they were registered voters. It wouldn’t have stopped the absentee ballots submitted for dead voters. It wouldn’t have stopped anyone from voting in more than one state. (It should be noted the number of dead votes and double votes is very small.)
zip @ 10
Because money doesn’t grow in thin air, and if you want to spend more, you need more revenue — a simple concept that Republicans seem to have an extraordinarily hard time grasping.
Dave @ 12, 13
They didn’t raise taxes for our $7 billion share, they borrowed it, which created an additional set of problems.
I wonder how many of the Republican trolls on this board understand the connection between Bush’s deficit spending and $2.50 gas? Probably none of them.
zip @ 14
It’s too late at night to get into an argument with you, but from what I know about what happened in Florida, Ohio, and other places, I don’t think it’s too strong a statement or an inaccurate one. Let’s just say this, zip, and let it go at that: Republicans, thanks to their track record, have a huge credibility gap with Democrats when it comes to election hanky-panky. We don’t trust you guys — does that spell it out for you clearly enough?
zip @ 16
“And by your comments I take it that you (along with the rest of the Progressive crowd) support the Democrats cynical raising of the most regressive of our state taxes, without even pausing to discuss real tax reform?”
Did you oversleep again, Zip Van Winkle? How many times have I posted on this blog that our tax system sucks and I support a state income tax? Do you? Most of your Republican cronies don’t, which is why we’re stuck with this regressive tax system. When you can’t change the tax system and you have to raise taxes, you have no choice but to raise regressive taxes. And before you start bitching that the legislature shouldn’t have raised taxes, please submit your list of $1.2 billion of spending cuts. Be specific, please.
VCRW @ 19
WTF are you blabbing about? If you’re going to troll here, at least try to throw in a semblance of fact. OF COURSE THE DATABASE IS GOING TO BE PURGED OF ILLEGAL VOTERS YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Pope @ 20
Getting the legislature to agree on a primary bill (Republicans controlled the Senate then) was difficult enough without making it impossible by trying to change the date.
Alan, it appears that VCRW has gotten your goat. Laugh it off.
VCRW @ 19
“I guess we wouldn’t want to purge those felons, illegal aliens and dead voters. After all, they are the Democrats base.”
Really? I though for sure they were primarily Repugs.
David @ 30
No, I assumed he’s deaf and I have to yell or he can’t hear.
Why is it necessary to assign blame for what exists today?
Could we not all go back and reconstruct according to our own political viewpoint how things got to where they are now? And what purpose would that exercise serve?
We are where we are…the problems that exist exist now…why can’t we all come together to try to remedy them rather than taking past paths of passing the buck, assigning blame?
If it’s a recognized by all sides problem that the primary is too close to the general, why can’t we take that bull by the horns and fix it now?
G Davis @ 34
I’m certainly for fixing it. My understanding is Republicans are holding it hostage for some other stuff of a deal-killer nature.
So Alan, my question stands…If it’s a recognized by all sides problem that the primary is too close to the general, why can’t we take that bull by the horns and fix it now?
Why would the Reps hold up something that we (and they) all seem to agree needs fixing so they an get some bene’s that deserve honest debate?
Does it serve some purpose I’m not aware of or is it a fine example of how politics have gone completely awry on both sides?
Do we the electorate not hold the responsibility of telling our glorious elected ones to get off the dime and fix this or do we get a pass to stand by while the two groups piss away the opportunity over partisanship?
Is this our state or only theirs?
hi
Prompt how to get rid of advertising?
Hi
Who can answer my question?