HorsesAss.Org

Wrestling greats Ron “King County Executive” Sims and Rev. Ken “the Jews killed Christ” Hutcherson lock horns tonight in a steel cage match at the Key Arena. Um… okay… it’s really just a debate, and it’s taking place in the staid environs of Seattle’s Town Hall. But I expect some rhetorical body slamming nonetheless.

Tickets are $5.00 at the door; fireworks start at 7:30 pm.

Rev. Hutcherson has been one of the most vocal opponents of legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians, and when Sims joined us this week on Podcasting Liberally, we asked him why he was willing to take on such a pompous, blowhard. Lamenting Hutcherson’s efforts to co-opt a civil rights movement that “people lost their lives over,” Sims said that it was simply time for him to sit across the table and take Hutcherson on:

“He’s trying to steal a movement and limit its effects, and that’s just so wrong.”

Yes it is.

Hutcherson reportedly has a habit of playing the race card when he finds himself on the losing end of an argument, but as Will shockingly learned during our podcast, he’s going to have a tough time doing that against Sims:

“He’s going to argue he’s black, and last time I looked in the mirror, I am too.”

Here’s my debating tip to Sims: you’re first question to Hutcherson should be to ask him how his boycott is going, and then as he fumbles for an answer… hit him over the head with a folding chair. I’m ready to rumble!

McGavick campaign worker shows Dems where they can stick their giant check.

Yesterday was Mike McGavick’s last official day as an insurance industry executive, and to celebrate, the state Dems stopped by to present him with a giant check symbolizing the $4.5 million in accelerated stock options he earned as part of his $15 million golden parachute. Technically, Safeco is constrained by the same campaign finance limits as you or I, but insurance industry lobbyist cum CEO cum senate candidate McGavick is free to spend as much on his own campaign as his new-found personal fortune affords him. How convenient.

Still, after studying the latest Elway Poll, it’s starting to look like no amount of money can buy McGavick this election. The other day I briefly commented on Sen. Maria Cantwell’s impressive 30-point lead, but if McGavick boosters found the headline disheartening, they better flip on their pacemakers before delving into the cross-tabs. I can’t post a copy here (I shouldn’t even have one myself,) but I’m happy to share some of the juicier tidbits.

As I previously reported, Cantwell enjoys a 55 to 25 percent lead over McGavick, but when you break down the numbers McGavick looks even weaker. Indeed, Cantwell’s margin actually improved when matched against McGavick than in the abstract re-elect/replace question. While Cantwell’s support holds steady at 55 percent, McGavick polls seven points behind a generic candidate, and those saying they will “definitely” vote for Cantwell rises from 24 to 31 percent. Of those who originally were inclined to vote against Cantwell, only 66 percent said they would vote for McGavick, with 11 percent deciding they would vote for Cantwell after all.

McGavick fares worse than a generic opponent. Ouch. But Elway tries to soothe the sting:

This is a familiar phenomenon early in the campaign, when the opponent is not as well known. In the abstract, respondents get to imagine their ideal opponent, a standard that real candidates can rarely live up to.

That may be true. But it should be remembered that McGavick first kicked off his campaign back in July… and again in October… twenty-four more times in January… and once again as recently as February 15. Furthermore, the sample was taken well after McGavick’s six-figure introductory TV ad campaign that ran in high profile slots during the Seahawks Super Bowl run. And yet according to Elway, Cantwell leads McGavick in every area of the state, in every demographic except Republicans… and by “significant margins.”

Clearly, whatever McGavick has been doing, hasn’t been working… and so he’s called a press conference for Thursday morning to present to reporters his “central campaign themes”… which if he’s smart, won’t be the same themes he’s stressed thus far.

While McGavick’s early ads tried to sell him as someone who can cut through the partisan strife in the other Washington, voters in this Washington simply aren’t buying it. By a 44-26% margin, respondents said a Democrat incumbent is more likely to reduce partisanship than a Republican challenger, while 45-28% of respondents saw a Democrat as more effective at reforming Congress.

[Cantwell] has a sizable advantage on her issues and she even appears to be beating McGavick on his own issues.

At least 51% of respondents graded Cantwell “satisfactory” or better on each of the 7 issue categories polled, including traditional Republican issues like “government spending and taxes,” “national security,” and “moral issues like abortion and gay marriage.” Um… what the hell is McGavick going to run on?

And all this comes in the context of an absolutely terrible political climate for anybody running with an “R” next to their name.

Winning statewide as a Republican in Washington state has not been easy for about a generation, but it looks especially difficult this year. Nationally, pundits are talking about a “reverse 1994” when the GOP swept the board and took control of Congress. Some Democrats are thinking that it’s comeback time. That may or may not pan out nationally, but in Washington state the early signs point that way.

President Bush’s job approval ratings are about 5:3 negative in WA (compared to 5:4 negative nationally,) with 46% of respondents saying he is doing a “poor” job. Even 22% of Republicans give Bush a negative rating. Meanwhile, Democrats hold a 15-point edge in the generic voting for Congress question (6 points higher than the national average.)

And it gets even worse for Republicans. Half the respondents said divided control of Congress “works best for the country,” and when combined with those who favored Democratic control, 73% were disinclined to vote Republican. Finally…

When asked directly about this Senate race (“If McGavick were to replace Cantwell in the US Senate, that would strengthen the Republican majority in the US Senate”) respondents said that was a reason to vote for Cantwell by nearly 2:1, including a 22-point gap among independents.

In this climate, even McGavick’s strengths seem to work against him, including the classic Republican tactic of running a successful businessman as a political outsider.

Typically, the outsider mantle has been an advantage when voters seem ready to throw the bums out. The voters in this survey, however, by a 4:3 ratio, rated the fact that McGavick was a CEO and not a politician as a reason to vote for Cantwell. She even had a 2-point edge on this point among people employed in the private sector.

Double ouch.

Perhaps the only ray of hope Elway could find for a non-politician like McGavick running against an incumbent, was that voters said “stands on specific issues” and “overall philosophy” were more important than “record and experience,” and that with the exception of the top ranked issue — health care — the other top issues were ones the GOP has run on for years: the economy, war, foreign policy, values and taxes. But Elway throws in a caveat:

The caution would be that 69% of those who said “stands on issues” or “overall philosophy” were not Republicans: 25% were Independents and 44% were Democrats. For the Democrats in particular, what they want to hear about the economy and the war is unlikely to be what a Republican will be saying.

Quite frankly, McGavick’s timing sucks. Republicans have long considered Cantwell to be vulnerable, but her job approval ratings have steadily climbed, even as the political climate for WA Republicans has all but tanked. McGavick has so far failed to gain any traction with voters, but as weak as he is, Cantwell’s strength should not be understated… indeed, her 55% re-elect compares quite favorably with Sen. Patty Murray’s 49% standing in February of 2004. Murray went on to win with 55% of the vote. As Elway notes:

The voters may not be wild about Maria Cantwell, but they like her better than they used to, and they are not greeting Mike McGavick with flowers and candy.

Of course the election is still nine months out, and after a ton of paid media, it’s hard to imagine the race won’t tighten… but if it doesn’t, the repercussions will be felt far outside the U.S. Senate. A Cantwell cakewalk could only help Darcy Burner’s challenge in the 8th Congressional District, extending coattails from the top of the ticket, and freeing up money that might otherwise be spent defending an incumbent senator. The Reichert-Burner race is already shaping up to be a nail-biter, and if McGavick fails to create a little drama, the media will turn its attention to the 8th CD, further enhancing Burner’s profile.

Yeah, it’s only a poll, it’s only February, and this is only some idle speculation. But you can be sure that if these numbers were flipped, it’d be the bloggers on the other side who were doing all the speculating.

Hmm. Did you know that Clallam County locks up 57 percent of its African American population, Walla Walla County 58 percent, and Mason County a whopping 65 percent? Do those percentages seem impossibly high? Well they are, and it all gets back to our state’s policies regarding felons, and the way it distorts state and local politics.

The other day, when I wrote about WA’s felon disenfranchisement laws — which a New York Times editorial calls “morally outrageous” — I ignored the flip side to the political impact of felons: how situating prisons in rural areas exports both money and political power to these regions.

As Steve Zemke explains over at Majority Rules, the U.S. Census counts non-voting prisoners where they are incarcerated, rather than where they lived before imprisonment (and tend to return upon their release.) These census figures are used for drawing congressional and legislative district boundaries, resulting in over-representation in the rural areas where prisons tend to be situated, and under-representation in the urban areas from which the prison population is largely drawn. It also distorts the distribution of federal and state funds tied to population and demographics.

In Washington state and throughout the nation, non-voting prison populations essentially function as “phantom voters,” helping to increase the political clout of Republican-leaning rural districts, while decreasing the power of their urban counterparts. Indeed, researchers have found 21 counties nationally where at least 21 percent of so-called “residents” actually live behind bars.

That explains Mason County’s absurdly high African American incarceration rate; only a handful of these inmates are truly native to the county. In fact, Mason County’s permanent (though rotating) non-voting prison population inflates its census count by about 5 percent… essentially stealing both tax dollars and political power from the urban areas exporting the prisoners. Meanwhile, upon release, these prisoners return to their urban homes, impoverished and disenfranchised.

In opposing efforts to bring WA’s laws more in line with the rest of the nation by making it easier for ex-felons to regain the right to vote, Republicans like to spout moralistic homilies about doing the time if you do the crime, and stuff like that. But in truth, their stubborn support of the status quo is mostly based on their perception that it grants them a political advantage.

What we have now are social, economic, political and legal policies that, intentionally or not, work together to permanently disenfranchise minorities and other disadvantaged groups. We have structural social inequities that conspire to condemn whole segments of minority communities to near permanent underclass status. (How else to explain multigenerational pockets of poverty without resorting to racialist theories?) We have a so-called “war on drugs” that disproportionately imprisons minority and lower income citizens, felon voting laws that disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, and census and redistricting policies that distort the representational balance between urban and rural districts.

None of these policies, laws and institutions may have been devised with the purpose of granting Republicans an electoral advantage, but that clearly appears to be the result, and thus the state GOP will always oppose any reform they perceive might shift the balance the other way. And while the larger social injustice is certainly more egregious than mere partisan electoral inequities, it is the latter that makes the former so much more difficult to correct, for those who would benefit most from reform are those who have no voice.

When we imprison and disenfranchise an ever growing number of our urban citizens, it not only provides a direct economic benefit to the conservative-leaning rural districts where we locate our prisons, it also grants them an unfair electoral advantage by distorting the population figures used for redistricting. And one cannot understand the opposition to reforming our felon voting and other related laws, without understanding this simple political reality.

As has long been the norm in Seattle, whenever a local elected official has a big-vision issue to promote, the first constituency he must sell it to are the ornery, partisan drunks. But since the county council wasn’t available last night, King County Executive Ron Sims dropped by Drinking Liberally instead, and eloquently pitched his vision of a re-imagined Seattle Center.

Ron worked the appreciative crowd with his personal mix of schmoozing, hugging, and bully pulpit thumping, and then set the standard for all savvy politicians by joining us for our weekly podcast… now available for your listening pleasure.

It’s not quite our usual freewheeling conversation — we stuck mostly to local issues — but neither is it your typical interview with an elected official… and I’m guessing Ron had a lot more fun (and a couple more drinks) then he usually has with KUOW’s Steve Scher.

Joining Ron last night was Molly, Gavin, Lynn, Will, and of course, me. And thanks once again to Gavin and Richard for producing the show; please check out their suffix and prefix-less podcast, Confab.

Conventional wisdom says that nearly all initiatives dramatically lose support the more voters learn about them. For example, last year’s Initiative 912, which would have essentially repealed the state’s transportation improvement package, enjoyed a 15 point advantage in June, but lost by 10 points in November… a twenty-five point swing in only five months.

Most consultants will tell you that unless your issue polls upwards of 75 percent, you shouldn’t waste your money… thus one of the first things most prospective initiative sponsors do, is commission a favorably worded poll to prove to potential backers that they have overwhelming support.

And that’s exactly what the Washington State Farm Bureau did last fall in preparation for I-933, when it crafted the following loaded polling question:

“If there were an initiative on the ballot that would require state or local government to pay a property owner if a government action damaged the value or use of their property, would you vote yes to support the initiative or no to oppose the initiative.”

Well, gee… an initiative requiring compensation if government damages your property? Well that sounds good. (Actually, it’s already in our state Constitution.) No wonder the question reportedly polled at 79 percent.

But of course, you can’t expect such favorably loaded wording when the Attorney General’s office writes your ballot title. Or can you…?

Concise Description:

This measure would require compensation when any government regulation damages the use or value of private property, forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property, and provide for exceptions and conditions.

Uh-huh.

Gee… when I filed my initiative, Deputy Solicitor General Jim Pharris wouldn’t even write me a ballot title that described what the initiative did… and then sought an injunction against me when I challenged the title in court.

But Pharris not only gave the WSFB a ballot title with the most favorable wording possible — using the loaded word “damage” — he apparently relied on their focus group and polling data to craft it. This is a ballot title the WSFB might have written itself. (Perhaps, it did.)

Not that any of this is a surprise. Pharris has long suffered from “Stockholm Syndrome,” identifying with the likes of Tim Eyman after being forced to defend so many of his unconstitutional initiatives. Intentional or not, he routinely gives anti-government initiatives favorable ballot titles.

Neither would it surprise me if Attorney General Rob McKenna — proudly in the pocket the Building Industry Association of Washington — took a personal interest in the Developer’s initiative. The BIAW, a strong backer of I-933, has played a crucial role in developing and supporting WA’s so-called “property rights” movement and its right-wing militia spin-offs. The BIAW also put $275,000 into independent expenditures on McKenna’s behalf in 2004, calling his election one of “the biggest political victories” it has ever had. For his part, McKenna reportedly phoned the BIAW on election night and told them “If it wasn’t for BIAW I wouldn’t have been elected.”

But regardless of the motives or behind-the-scenes wrangling, this is simply a bad ballot title, and I-933 opponents are rightly challenging it in court. Statute requires “a true and impartial description of the measure’s essential contents,” but a brief filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters and other petitioners correctly points out that Pharris’s the WSFB’s wording fails to describe any of I-933’s four main provisions.

Maybe our State’s voters would vote “yes” if the November ballot described this measure’s four basic changes to Washington law. Maybe they would vote “no”. But at the very least, the Concise Description of this measure printed on the november ballot should tell voters what those four changes are. Indeed, Washington’s ballot title statute demands it.

With that, attorney Thomas Ahearne goes on to propose a truly neutral alternative to Pharris’s leading description:

Concise Description:

This measure would require government studies before restricting property use, exempt or pay property owners who object to certain zoning, environmental, and other laws, and prevent development regulations that prohibit previously-existing uses.

Opponents have a single shot at a ballot title challenge; there is no provision for appeal beyond Thurston County Superior Court. If this is an unbiased judge interested in presenting the citizens of this state with an unbiased ballot title, he’ll approve a concise description closer to Ahearne’s than that drafted by the WSFB/AG.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

I’ll be there tonight, looking forward to an icey cold Manny’s and another hot podcast. We may even have an interesting special guest. No promises, but we’ll see.

It’s great to see an editorial board finally expose WA’s disenfranchisement of ex-felons for the national disgrace that it is. Too bad it wasn’t a WA state paper. From an editorial in Monday’s New York Times (Dickensian Democracy):

Stripping convicted felons of the right to vote is a slap at America’s democratic ideals. Many states are backing away from this policy, understanding at last that voting rights are in fact basic human rights that should be abridged only in the rarest circumstances. That lesson has yet to penetrate the state of Washington, which has created a form of disenfranchisement that is straight out of “Oliver Twist.”

Last week, an article by The Times’s Adam Liptak introduced us to a disabled woman named Beverly Dubois who lost the right to vote because she could not pay about $1,600 of charges that were assessed in connection with her marijuana conviction. The debt is growing rapidly because of the interest charged by the state. Ms. Dubois, who served nine months in jail, has paid her debt to society. But until she settles the one to the state, she is stripped of her rights as a citizen. Disabled in a car accident, she can send in only $10 per month. At that rate, she is likely to die before paying off the debt.

Several states permanently marginalize ex-offenders by saddling them with unfair charges and fines that are supposed to help pay for public defenders, drug tests, halfway houses and other “services.” But Washington leads the pack in dunning impoverished offenders. People who commit certain crimes are even charged for having their DNA registered in the offender database.

In addition to devastating poor families that can barely feed themselves, these fees push ex-offenders even further into the margins of society. And Washington’s policy of stripping people of their right to vote until they can cough up enough money to pay these unfair charges is morally outrageous.

Lets be blunt. WA’s felon disenfranchisement policy is modeled on post-Reconstruction laws, specifically designed to deny African Americans the right to vote. And it works: about a quarter of all African American males in WA state are denied the franchise due to felony convictions. WA’s felon disenfranchisement laws are clearly racist in impact, if not in intent.

Republicans can come up with all the moralistic arguments they want, but there is absolutely no social benefit to further marginalizing ex-felons by denying them the right to vote… indeed, none other than the American Correctional Association recommends changing these laws so as to restore the franchise upon release from prison.

The truth is, the state GOP opposes changing the law because they’ve done the math: African Americans disproportionately vote Democrat, and the law disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans. I guess the only thing that’s really changed since Reconstruction is party allegiance.

NARAL Pro-Choice Washington executive director Karen Cooper accuses GOP senate candidate Mike McGavick of “playing politics with women’s lives,” writing in a press release that the presumptive Republican nominee prevaricates on abortion because he knows an openly anti-choice candidate cannot win elections statewide.

“Real pro-choice candidates stand up for the right of every woman to access reproductive healthcare including the right to access contraception, bear healthy children and choose safe legal abortion. [But…] “McGavick is like a slick salesmen; every time I turn around I hear something different from him about where he stands on fundamental freedoms for women.”

Aww gee… it couldn’t be that confusing, could it? I betcha the professionals have him all figured out. Let’s see… just yesterday, Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter definitively wrote about McGavick:

“He is for a woman’s right to choose.”

Well that settles it. Except… according to a November 6, 2005 Times editorial:

“Like Dino Rossi, McGavick is Roman Catholic and opposes abortion.”

So… on this very high-profile issue, Balter comes to the opposite conclusion from her paper’s editorial of just a few months ago… an editorial which she herself may have written. (I’m told Balter tends to write the political editorials, but I’ll have to defer to Stefan, who claims to be an expert on unsigned Balter editorials.)

Hmm. Well… if the Times — which fancies itself WA’s paper of record — can’t figure out McGavick’s position on abortion, how the hell are us simple-minded voters expected to do so?

Which of course, is exactly the point. McGavick doesn’t want us to figure out his position on abortion, because either way, it loses him votes. Just look at Balter’s tortured attempt to figure it out for herself:

He is for a woman’s right to choose, but against federal funding for abortion, which unnerves those who bristle at limiting rights for a class of women. He won’t say if Roe v. Wade should be overturned. His limited pro-choice stance must be reconciled with his support for Alito, who is almost certainly another vote to overturn Roe.

So… um… McGavick is for a woman’s right to choose… but against federal funding, for parental notification, and for a ban on “late-term” abortions. And he won’t say whether Roe v. Wade should or should not be overturned. (Though he supported Alito, who almost certainly will vote to overturn it.)

McGavick’s campaign calls his abortion stance “complicated.” Balter describes it as “moderately pro-choice.” I call it “lying,” for this is a candidate who won’t come right out and say that he opposes abortion, but obviously will not lift a finger to stop his Republican colleagues from outlawing it. It’s kinda like George Bush saying he’s opposed to domestic wiretapping.

After all, it doesn’t really matter what a politician says he believes about an issue if he votes the opposite, and anybody who thinks a Sen. McGavick wouldn’t just be another vote for banning abortion is out of their minds.

McGavick is anti-choice and anti-Roe, and with a wink and a nod, you can be sure that the right-wing of his party understands this. Anybody who cares deeply about choice, simply can’t vote for McGavick… and neither can anybody who cares deeply about keeping politicians honest on the issues.

The Seattle Times editorial board wants to elect all judges, including part-timers on the Municipal Court, claiming that elected judges are more independent.

Uh-huh.

So the argument, I suppose, is that the best way to take politics out of judicial decisions is to turn all our judges into politicians, huh?

Sure, the Times makes a reasonable sounding argument that directly electing judges might make them more independent from those who would otherwise appoint them. (Though they neglect to provide any evidence that our Municipal Courts currently lack judicial independence.) But even if the Times is right, judicial elections would likely make judges more dependent on those who would finance their campaigns… and right now, there are absolutely no restrictions on individual contributions to judicial candidates.

National organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars on local judicial races, completely changing the ideological complexion of courts in state after state. Here in WA, the aggressively political Building Association of Washington — an organization with ties to right-wing militia groups — spent at least $500,000 putting their lawyer, Jim Johnson, on the state Supreme Court.

Most judicial races continue to be low profile, low money affairs, making them the Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues of political Monopoly. A relatively small injection of cash into a campaign where name recognition is your most valuable asset, can easily determine the outcome, making judicial races an absolute bargain for wealthy special interests intent on monopolizing our courts.

But what we need on the courts are judges who know the law, not those who know how to appeal to wealthy backers or even fickle voters. Our judicial system is supposed to be free from politics, not absolutely dependent on it.

A better solution might be one in which an independent commission recommends limited slates of qualified candidates for open judicial seats, subject to executive appointment and legislative confirmation. Once appointed, judges would serve for life, subject to periodic retention votes in which the public gets to cast a thumbs up or down on each sitting judge. Such a system would ensure judicial independence from both those who appointed them, and from the whims of public sentiment… not to mention wealthy special interests. It would also unclutter the ballot of judicial races on which, quite frankly, most voters (including myself) are usually unqualified to make an informed decision.

The Times proposal, to elect more judges, has a simple, populist appeal. But it will do nothing to increase the quality and independence of judges serving on our Municipal Courts.

This is what makes America great:

ORLANDO, Fla. — Fistfights broke out and police made 17 arrests Saturday at a neo-Nazi rally and march through a predominantly black neighborhood.

In khaki uniforms, tall black boots and red arm patches bearing swastikas, about 30 members of the National Socialist Movement were barricaded on one side by SWAT team members at the rally.

Of course, it’s not the Nazis who make America great, but rather, the fact that even Nazis have the same right to free speech as any other American… you know… except for VA nurses.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has asked Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson for a thorough inquiry of his agency’s investigation into whether a V.A. nurse’s letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration amounted to “sedition.”

[…]

Laura Berg, a clinical nurse specialist for 15 years, wrote a letter in September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq Wwr. She urged people to “act forcefully” by bringing criminal charges against top administration officials, including the president, to remove them from power because they played games of “vicious deceit.”

[…]

The agency seized her office computer and launched an investigation. Berg is not talking to the press, but reportedly fears losing her job.

That’s right… Nazis are permitted to march near Disney World, but when a VA employee criticizes the Bush administration, they’re actually investigated for sedition. Sedition!

V.A. human resources chief Mel Hooker had said in a Nov. 9 letter that his agency was obligated to investigate “any act which potentially represents sedition,” the ACLU said.

Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico, told The Progressive magazine: “We were shocked to see the word ‘sedition’ used. Sedition? That’s like something out of the history books.”

In a press release, Simonson also said: “Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of ‘sedition’?”

Um… yeah. Unless, apparently, you happen to be some harmless Nazi.

A couple tidbits from AP state political writer Dave Ammons’ weekly column, that puts the Cantwell-McGavick race in perspective:

–DUELING POLLS. Last week’s report mentioned a Republican poll that showed Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., with just an eight point lead over her likely GOP challenger, Mike McGavick. Big trouble? Now independent pollster Stuart Elway reports Cantwell with a runaway 30-point lead – 55 percent definitely voting for her or inclined to do so, versus 25 percent inclined or definitely voting McGavick’s way. Elway interviewed 405 voters by phone Feb. 6-9; margin of error plus or minus five percentage points.

-BUSH DRAG. Elway said his polls show Cantwell’s popularity gaining over the past five years and that the state is “darker blue” this year. Referring to President Bush’s dismal numbers here, Elway says “Cantwell will try in this campaign to make McGavick’s middle initial `W.'” Thus far, McGavick hasn’t shown voters a compelling reason to dump Cantwell, he says.

A 30-point lead amongst firm voters… and this is before the dirt starts flying against former insurance industry CEO and lobbyist McGavick. (And as one of the state’s leading muckrakers, I promise you, dirt will fly.) Cantwell’s base, as reflected in the Elway Poll, also doesn’t likely include support from many disenchanted members of the left wing of the Democratic Party, who would prefer a more uniformly liberal nominee, but most of whom will eventually cast their votes for Cantwell.

Sen. Cantwell is a proven leader on environmental, energy, and port security issues, and as Elway points out, her popularity continues to grow. Not only is McGavick faced with the daunting task of providing a compelling reason to dump Cantwell, the reason must be so compelling as to convince independents (and even some moderate Republicans) that it’s worth the risk of handing the Bush administration the 60-vote majority needed to shut down all Democratic filibusters… like the one Sen. Cantwell successfully led to block oil drilling in the sensitive Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

I’ll be in transit Saturday, returning from a week of Florida sunshine. So talk amongst yourselves.

Hubert G. Locke, former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the UW, has a guest column in the Seattle P-I, arguing that we have an “imperfect initiative system worth keeping.” He particularly singles out Tim Eyman for the way he has abused the process, turning it into a lucrative business.

Eyman’s hijinks are such that one is tempted to think about scuttling the entire business. While that would be a mistake, the larger one is allowing this political wild card to continue running amok, trumping the legislative process and, for all practical purposes, wielding a personal veto over well-considered government decisions.

Personally, I don’t share Prof. Locke’s faith in the initiative system, and remain convinced that it almost always results in language inferior to that produced by a deliberative, legislative process. But I’m enough of a pragmatist to understand that eliminating the initiative process entirely is simply not politically realistic.

So how do we stop “this political wild card” from “running amok,” short of taking Timmy out behind the wood shed and shooting him? (Also not a politically viable solution.) We need some initiative reforms to directly address the most blatant abuses of the last few years, and here’s a few suggestions in no particular order.

Ban paying per signature
The overwhelming majority of signatures are gathered by paid workers, who currently earn a street price of anywhere from $0.75 to $3.00 per signature, depending on the time of year and the competition. This not only encourages outright signature fraud, it discourages petitioners from actually taking the time to educate signers about the issues. (Most signature gatherers are paid mercenaries who carry petitions for several initiatives at once.)

I’d prefer to ban paid signature gathering entirely, but the courts have already said no. Oregon requires signature gatherers to be paid hourly, and so should we.

Restrict content on petitions
Tim Eyman is a liar, and his petitions are filled with lies. For example he once titled a 25% property tax cut initiative with the bold headline: “No New Income Tax!” That’s just plain wrong.

Since we surely don’t want government censures approving editorial content, the solution is to eliminate it entirely. The law already strictly lays out required elements, such as signature lines, ballot title, ballot summary, and certain notices. Those should be the only elements legally allowed on a petition.

The current mix of proscribed legalistic elements and lying, propagandist bullshit can only serve to confuse voters as to the actual intent of the initiative. Let’s just give potential signers what they’ll see on the ballot, and not leave room for any lies.

Allow legal challenges prior to the ballot
With the notable exception of my initiative to proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass, the general legal rule is that initiatives are not ripe for challenge until after they have been approved by voters. At the time of the AG’s humorless scope challenge of my initiative, I wrote that I wouldn’t have minded so much if such policy were applied uniformly. And that’s exactly what we need to do.

Citizens should have the right to challenge any initiative on grounds that it violates the constitution or federal law, and petition the courts to bar it from the ballot… and voters should have a right to know that when they approve an initiative it will actually become law. Our recent history of initiatives being tossed out by the courts after the fact, only serves to undermine public trust in politics; a little pre-ballot vetting would do the process good.

No, it wouldn’t necessarily prevent lying schemers like the EFF from running cynical, political stunts like their voter purge initiative, but it would force them to draft a measure that is at the very least, legal. Our supposedly hallowed system of “direct democracy” should require a little effort.

Create incentives for filing initiatives to the legislature
We should increase the number signatures required to file an initiative to people, and decrease the number required to file an initiative to the legislature, thus providing a substantial incentive for initiative sponsors to pursue the latter.

Of the two, initiatives to the legislature are by far the more reasoned and deliberative process, as they require the legislature to hold hearings and debate the initiative, or put it on the ballot… with or without a proposed alternative. This gives the average citizen (with half a million dollars to buy signatures) the opportunity to force the legislature to address an issue, but potentially gives voters more than just a simple up or down vote on a measure drafted entirely by some angry watch salesman sitting in the bonus room of his Mukilteo McMansion.

Charge a reasonable filing fee
Tim Eyman files dozens of initiatives a year, and while each one costs taxpayers thousands of dollars to process, Timmy only pays a $5.00 filing fee. That’s ridiculous.

The Sec. of State should be able to charge a reasonable fee — say, $150.00 — waived or refunded upon submission of a reasonable number of signatures. We charge candidates much more to file for office… I suppose to discourage frivolous filings. Well, in recent years the SOS’s office has been inundated with frivolous filings, and the best way to discourage this is to require sponsors to put a little bit of effort (or money) up front.

Anyway, those are a few of my suggestions for initiative reform. I’d love to hear yours.

In writing about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s plan to file an initiative purging WA’s voter rolls, and forcing everybody to reregister, WashBlog’s Noemie Maxwell asks:

Why does the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pour probably hundreds of thousands of dollars – the talents and time of its staff members and dedicated citizen volunteers, into the project of convincing the voters of Washington State, despite all evidence to the contrary, that our government and our citizens cannot be trusted?

But to answer this and other questions about the EFF’s voter purge proposal, all one really needs to know about this initiative is that it is ILLEGAL… and they know it.

I’m no lawyer (much to my mother’s chagrin,) but most statutes really aren’t all that difficult to read, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — commonly known as “Moter Voter” — lays down very clear guidelines governing the circumstances by which states can purge voters from the rolls… and pandering, partisan paranoia is not one of them.

Go ahead, argue the EFF’s case all you want, but Sec. 1973gg-6 (a) ensures that in the administration of voter registration for federal elections, states shall:

(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except –

( A ) at the request of the registrant;
( B ) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or
( C ) as provided under paragraph (4);
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of –
( A ) the death of the registrant; or
( B ) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) of this section;

That’s it. Once registered, a voter “may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except” at his own request, or due to felony conviction or mental incapacity, death, or change of address. There are absolutely no other circumstances under federal law that a registrant may be removed from the rolls. None. Nada. Bupkis.

There’s not much room for interpretation here, especially in light of the stated legislative intent:

The purposes of this subchapter are –

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

Clearly, purging the entire voter roll and forcing everybody to reregister could only achieve the opposite.

Which of course, the EFF wouldn’t mind. But they’re not stupid, and neither are their lawyers, so of course they understand at least as well as I do that their initiative cannot possibly achieve their stated objective. Which brings us back to Noemi’s question: why would the EFF pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into such a blatantly undemocratic, illegal, and ultimately futile initiative?

Hmm. Well… because this initiative has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of the voter rolls. No, this cynical little abuse of the initiative process is purely strategic, and is focused entirely on propping up the election prospects of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, and Republican state legislators.

You see, even a losing campaign can be a worthwhile investment if it pays collateral benefits on election day, and anybody who thinks initiatives are simply about passing laws, hasn’t been paying close attention to how the parties and their surrogates routinely use initiative campaigns to influence public opinion and strategically drive voter turnout. Indeed, some initiatives — like the EFF’s latest stinking pile of political bullshit — are entirely strategic, having absolutely no reasonably obtainable, direct legislative goals whatsoever.

So why would the EFF sponsor this initiative? Because they are a bunch of deceitful, manipulative, calculating liars, whose only goal is to seize political power for themselves and their right-wing fellow travelers, at any cost. It is fair to say that everything about this initiative is a lie, from their feigned concern over the cleanliness of our voter rolls (our Republican Secretary of State has found no evidence of illegal votes,) to their absolutely bizarre proposal to eliminate voter fraud by, um… eliminating voters.

I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.

The EFF has proposed a laughable and illegal initiative, aimed at a problem that doesn’t exist… and it only deserves to be debated as such.

I guess one of the advantages of being Jewish is that no matter what I write, our local Nazis can’t exactly label me a “race traitor,” can they? Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Dave Niewert of Orcinus, who occasionally pisses off the right-wing extremists he covers.

Both of us were recently named “race traitors” at the Website of the regional National Socialist Movement outfit (sorry, I won’t link to it). There is an innate threat in such a listing, of course, but it’s one I’m accustomed to, not to mention well prepared to deal with.

Still, it underscores the potential problems that lie in wait for anyone publishing a blog like this. In addition to the harassment that comes with these things (the NSM folks kindly urged their followers to dump hate material in my comments, which I’ve been very easily deleting), there’s always the potential for these things to trickle over into your private life. The NSM is a tiny contingent, really, but all of these groups attract unstable and violent followers, and they are an actual threat.

Clearly, shit like this is meant to harass and intimidate — and I suppose, in their dreams, eventually eliminate. Yeah… they’re just a handful of pathetic wackos playing dress up, but as Dave points out, it only takes one unstable nut case to do some real damage.

So, what can we do about threats like this? Dave wants to turn it against them.

I recently wrapped up my regular fund-raiser (I raised over $2,000, and will report in a separate post on that). But I’ve decided to run a supplemental fund-raiser, based on a campaign of refutation for this kind of intimidation.

What I want is to be able to turn their campaign against them: For every post and threat they make, people can donate to the cause of keeping Orcinus afloat.

I’m asking folks to toss a fiver (or whatever amount you like) in the PayPal kitty at the upper corner (or write me at P.O. Box 17872, Seattle WA 99107), and designate it with the phrase, “Say No to Nazis”. I’ll report on the fund’s progress in the coming weeks.

Sounds good to me. I just made my contribution and I urge you to make yours.