Tag Archives: Nov 2 2010 General Election

Young Voters and Minority Voters Opted to Let Rich Older Voters Decide the 2010 Election.

If you don’t vote, you’ve still made a political decision. In this year’s election it seems that young voters and minority voters decided to opt out and let older voters and the wealthy decide the future direction of the country.  This disengagement in the political process allowed the Republicans to retake the US House of Representatives, decrease the Democratic majority in the Senate, increase the number of Republican Governors, and even change some state Legislatures from Democratic to Republican.

An analysis by Project Vote looked at those who voted in the 2010 General Election on Nov 2, 2010. A research memo from Project Vote, entitled “An Analysis of Who Voted (and Who Didn’t Vote) in the 2010 Election,”  done by Dr. Lorraine Minnite found that ” wealthier voters and Americans over the age of 65 surged to the polls in 2010, and increased their support for the Republican party, while young voters and minority voters (who strongly favor Democrats) dropped off at higher rates than in 2006″.

Here is a summary of some of the study’s analysis as posted on the Project Vote news release:

1.Senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.

2. The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percent compared to 2006.

3. Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.

4. Women—already one of the most reliable voting groups—increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.

If Democrats hope to win in 2012, they are going to have to re-energize the youth and minority vote to turn out. These folks need to realize change takes time and they need to be involved for the long haul, not just one election.

And they need to be involved in getting their elected officials to vote for the things they believe in.

And that may mean raising their voices and passions to outshout the Tea Party and Republican Party of No and the anti tax, pro-corporate, pro big banks, pro insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce and all the others that put profit ahead of compassion and fairness.

A Republican Campaign Joke or a Deception?

Last night my answering machine recorded a Republican robo-call. The call said that “A lot of people are upset with Washington DC because nothing gets done. Patty Murray is part of the problem” The joke/deception of course is that they expect the public to believe it. Republicans by obstructing and stopping  a lot of legislation from being passed by the US Senate through their threat of the filibuster, prevented many things from getting done. The joke/lie is that the Republicans expect  us to believe it is the Democrat’s and Patty Murray’s fault. Is enough of the public really gullible enough to believe it’s the Democrats fault? And when one looks at what Democrats accomplished in Congress over the last two year’s (see below) it’s obvious the Republicans are lying about what Congress did.

Unfortunately with the country still fairly evenly divided politically it doesn’t take a lot of voters to change the makeup of Congress. The answer in the current political climate is that enough people will believe the Republican joke/deception/lie such that Republicans will be even more able to obstruct Democrats from moving the country forward with needed reform.

The right wing free market and corporate deluging of the media has been intense. The public is being fooled by the Republican storyline because voters are looking for a scapegoat for the country’s problems.  It is a lot easier to blame someone – like the Democrats- because they are in power, than it is to work for solutions. And the Republicans have been more intent on demonizing the Democrats for political gain than they have been on advocating for solutions that will benefit the majority of Americans that are not wealthy.

Democrats inherited a colossal problem  It  is for multiple reasons they are not faring well in this election. There will be endless discussions of this over the next few days.  Reasons listed will include the Democrats not boasting about their accomplishments enough, Obama not providing a clear vision of his future for America, the question whether the Government is responsible for the state of the economy or whether it is private enterprise and Wall Street greed driving things, the issue of  the news media preferring to cover conflict rather than resolution, the huge influx of hidden corporate and special intererest money and a Republican noise and propaganda machine that set the agenda for what this election was about rather than the Democrats.

Obama’s role in the Democrat’s plight can somewhat be explained  when he publicly said he was concentrating on getting things done rather than  dealing with politics and outreach to the public. The deactivating after his election of his grassroots organization that helped him get elected was obviously a serious mistake. It’s re-activation in this Election season comes too little and too late for many Democrats.

There are many candidates and elected officials that have had good ideas but who did not see them come to fruition. It is not enough to be “right”. You must also bring the people along with you. And you must keep them with you. It is not enough to win a legislative battle if you do not win the public perception battle that this is progress and is good for them.

A few reports by the news media note that both Congress and the President have accomplished a lot in the last two years. But it is too little recognition too late. The reports are true but the Republican death song has been going on too long to really get people’s to stop and look.

If some people perceive that Congress couldn’t act these last two years, they certainly will see much more inaction with more Republicans in Congress. And you will see the Republicans continue to blame the Democrats of course for any inaction, regardless of  Republican inaction or their obvious intent to do as little as possible to pass anything the Democrats or Obama wants..

The Republican plan of action will be to obstruct most everytihing unless they get exactly what they want.  The reality is it doesn’t matter what Obama does as long as the Republican goal is power and not solving our nation’s problems. Their goal as Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said is to make Obama a one term President. And they will not give or do anything that they think will make Obama look good.

While much was watered down that Obama and the Democrats passed, like financial reform and health care, a lot else did get done from a Democratic perspective. Two female Supreme Court Justices The Lily Ledbetter Act for equal pay for women.  More student loan money. Withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.  But so much is in what people think, not the reality. The reality is that Congress did get a lot done, despite what the majority of the voting  public may believe.  If people perceived that Congress couldn’t act, they certainly will see much more inaction with more Republicans in Congress.

Actually here’s a list of 42 things Democrats and Obama accomplished. It’s unfortunate that the Republicans have been able to spin a false picture to the American voters.  Regardless of the vote today, this list stands. It remains to be seen what will get done with more Republicans in Washington. This will be the record to compare with two years from now. Thanks to rescue truth. for this list of “Democratic Accomplishments you may not Know About”.

25 Tax Cuts Passed By Obama & Democrats


1.“Making Work Pay” tax credit

2.Earned Income Tax Credit increased

3.Increased Eligibility for Refundable Portion of Child Credit

4.“American Opportunity” Education Tax Credit

5.First-time Home Buyer Credit

6.Temp. Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits

7.Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes

8.Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases

9.Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers

10.Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security, SSI, RR Retirement, and Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits

11.Computers as Qualified Education Expenses in 529 Education Plans

12.Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit

13.Tax Parity for Transit Benefits

14.Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion

Small Business

1.Extension of Enhanced Small Business Expensing

2.5-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses for Small Businesses

3.Extension of Bonus Depreciation

4.Exclusion of 75% of Small Business Capital Gains from Taxes

5.Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief

6.Temporary Reduction of S Corporation Built-In Gains Holding Period from 10 Years to 7 Years

Other Business

1.Advanced Energy Investment Credit

2.Tax Credits for Alternative Refueling Property

3.Work Opportunity Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans and Disconnected Youth

4.Delayed Recognition of Certain Cancellation of Debt Income

5.Election to Accelerate Recognition of Historic AMT/R&D Credits

Fun Fact: 1/3 of the $862 billion stimulus was for tax cuts, something Republicans claim to support … although they still stand against stimulus. I suppose it depends on who gets the tax cuts.

Women’s Rights

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Protection against pay discrimination

Restores interpretation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act that protected women and other workers

Financial Rights

Credit CARD Act

Prevents retroactive rate increases

Requires companies to provide 45 days notice before changing rates and other contract provisions

Additional restrictions placed on fees

Prevents companies from taking advantage of students

Ends unfair double-cycle billing practices

Financial reform bill

Establishes Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which seeks solely to ensure financial institutions are being fair to consumers, and improvement in the simplicity in contracts

Prevents taxpayer bail out of financial institutions

Allows the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve

Various mortgage and derivatives reform, etc.


Student loans[1]

Ends “socialistic” federal subsidies to banks and other financial institutions (Interestingly, Republicans are okay with the kind of socialism that redirects taxpayer money to banks and other financial institutions.)

Eliminates unnecessary “middle-man” in student loan process, which placed financial burden on taxpayers while banks took in profits

Annual student loan payment capped at 10% of income

Saves an estimated $61 billion over 10 years

Health Care

Children’s health insurance bill[2]

CBO said bill will allow states to cover more than four million uninsured children by 2013, in addition to seven million already covered

Requires states to provide dental and mental illness coverage to children

Tobacco regulation

Provides graphic warnings on tobacco use risks

Restricts advertising to prevent marketing to minors

Health care reform

Insurers cannot cancel coverage when a person gets sick

Requires health insurance corporations to cover preexisting conditions

Eliminates lifetime limits

Allows insurance purchase across state lines

Allows young adults to stay on parents’ health insurance policy until 26

Crime & Civil Rights

Hate crime legislation[4]

Provides protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people

Tribal Law and Order Act

Provide additional means to reduce high rates of violent crime, including rape & sexual assualt within Native American reservations

View the rescuetruth.com post on the Tribal Law and Order Act


The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Expands service and voluteer opportunites

Benefits education, health care, energy, etc.


Cash for Clunkers successfully contributed to 680,000+ vehicle sales in summer 2009

Largest clean energy investment ever made

Reduced deficit by $122 billion[5]

Reduced federal spending by 2%[5]

What didn’t get passed because of Republican obstructionism?

Health Care for 9/11 Emergency Responders

DISCLOSE Act (transparency in elections, specifically campaign financing)

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal

Removal of $75 million cap on oil spill payouts

Elimination of tax incentives for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and creation of tax incentives to businesses bringing jobs home

Metropolitan Democratic Club Endorsements for November 2, 2010 Election

The Metropolitan Democratic Club of Seattle has been around now for over 50 years. They have been undergoing a rejuvenation in recent years building membership and being more visible. They have been holding for a long times public forums with a variety of issues and speakers. They meet in downtown Seattle over lunchtime. You can follow their activities on their website and they also have a Facebook page that has a good number of followers.

Their revamped website notes that

The Metropolitan Democratic Club of Seattle was established in 1956 to promote new ideas and growth for the Democratic Party and to provide a more progressive alternative to the mainstream Party apparatus. Its founding members were committed to reforming and building the Party by reaching out to independent voters, activating citizen interest and participation in politics, examining issues and supporting measures for the public good, and encouraging and aiding qualified younger candidates in running for public office.

Following is a list of their endorsements of candidates and issues for the November 2, 2010 General Election ballot:


US Senate, Patty Murray

US Rep CD 1, Jay Inslee

US Rep CD 2, Rick Larsen

US Rep CD 7, Jim McDermott

US Rep CD 8, Suzan DelBene

US Rep CD 9, Adam Smith

State Legislative

Rep 1st LD Pos 1, Derek Stanford

Rep 1st LD Pos 2, Luis Moscoso

Rep 5th LD Pos 1, Greg Hoover

Rep 11th LD Pos 1, Zack Hudgins

Rep 11th LD Pos 2, Bob Hasegawa

Sen 30th LD, Tracey Eide

Rep 30th LD Pos 1, Mark Miloscia

Rep 30th LD Pos 2, Carol Gregory

Sen 32nd LD, Maralyn Chase

Rep 32nd LD, Cindy Ryu

Rep 32nd LD Pos 2, Ruth Kagi

Sen 33rd LD, Karen Keiser

Rep 33rd LD Pos 1, Tina Orwall

Rep 33rd LD Pos 2, Dave Upthegrove

Sen 34th LD, Sharon Nelson

Rep 34th LD Pos 1, Eileen Cody

Rep 34th LD, Pos 2, Michael Heavey

Sen 36th LD, Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Rep 36th LD Pos 1, Reuven Carlyle

Rep 36th LD Pos 2, Mary Lou Dickerson

Sen 37th LD, Adam Kline

Rep 37th LD Pos 1, Sharon Tomiko Santos

Rep 37th LD Pos 2, Eric Pettigrew

Sen 41st LD, Randy Gordon

Rep 41st LD Pos 1, Marcie Maxwell

Rep 41st LD Pos 2, Judy Clibborn

Sen 43rd LD, Ed Murray

Rep 43rd LD Pos 1, Jamie Pedersen

Rep 43rd LD Pos 2, Frank Chopp

Sen 45th LD, Eric Oemig

Rep 45th LD Pos 1, Roger Goodman

Rep 45th LD Pos 2, Larry Springer

Sen 46th LD, Scott White

Rep 46th LD Pos 1, David Frockt

Rep 46th LD Pos 2, Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney

Sen 47th LD, Claudia Kauffman

Rep 47th LD Pos 1, Geoffrey Simpson

Rep 47th LD Pos 2, Pat Sullivan

Sen 48th LD, Rodney Tom

Rep 48th LD Pos 1, Ross Hunter

Rep 48th LD Pos 2, Deborah Eddy

King County

Council Dist 8, Joe McDermott

State Judicial

Supreme Court Pos 6, Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals Dist 1 Div 1, Michael Spearman

Dist Court, SE Electoral Dist Pos 6, Matt Williams

Seattle Judicial

Municipal Court Pos 1, Ed McKenna

Municipal Court Pos 3, Steve Rosen

Municipal Court Pos 5, Willie Gregory

Municipal Court Pos 6, Karen Donohue

State Ballot Measures

I-1053 NO

I-1100 NO

I-1105 NO

I-1107 NO

I-1082 NO

I-1098 YES

Ref Bill 52 YES

SJR 8225 YES

King County Ballot Measures

Proposition 1 YES

Charter Amendment 1 YES

Charter Amendment 2 YES

Charter Amendment 3 YES

Seattle Public Schools Levy YES

King County Democrats Nov 2, 2010 General Election Endorsements

The King County Democrats at their monthly meeting in September finalized their endorsements for the Nov. 2, 2010 General Election ballot.  King County will be an all mail in election so ballots need to be postmarked by Nov 2, 2010 at the latest.

You can see the King County ballot pamphlet here and can taylor it to your specific Legislative District.


Position Candidate

United States Senator – Patty Murray

United States Representatives:

District 1 – Jay Inslee

District 2 – Rick Larsen

District 7 – Jim McDermott

District 8 – Suzan DelBene

District 9 – Adam Smith

Washington State:

Legislative District 1, Position 1 – Derek Stanford

Legislative District 1, Position 2 – Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Position 1 – Gregory Scott Hoover

Legislative District 11, Position 1 – Zack Hudgins

Legislative District 11, Position 2 – Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 30, Senator – Tracey Eide

Legislative District 30, Position 1 – Mark Miloscia

Legislative District 30, Position 2 – Carol Gregory

Legislative District 32, Senator – Maralyn Chase

Legislative District 32, Position 1 – Cindy Ryu

Legislative District 32, Position 2 – Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Senator – Karen Keiser

Legislative District 33, Position 1 – Tina Orwall

Legislative District 33, Position 2 – Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Senator – Sharon Nelson

Legislative District 34, Position 1 – Eileen Cody

Legislative District 34, Position 2 – Joe Fitzgibbon

Legislative District 36, Senator – Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Legislative District 36, Position 1 – Reuven Carlyle

Legislative District 36, Position 2 – Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Senator – Adam Kline

Legislative District 37, Position 1 – Sharon Tomiko Santos

Legislative District 37, Position 2 – Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 39, Position 1 – Eleanor Walters

Legislative District 41, Senator – Randy Gordon

Legislative District 41, Position 1 – Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 41, Position 2 – Judy Clibborn

Legislative District 43, Senator – Ed Murray

Legislative District 43, Position 1 – Jamie Pedersen

Legislative District 43, Position 2 – Frank Chopp

Legislative District 45, Senator – Eric Oemig

Legislative District 45, Position 1 – Roger Goodman

Legislative District 45. Position 2 – Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Senator – Scott White

Legislative District 46, Position 1 – David Frockt

Legislative District 46, Position 2 – Phyllis G. Kenney

Legislative District 47, Senator – Claudia Kauffman

Legislative District 47, Position 1 – Geoff Simpson

Legislative District 47, Position 2 – Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Senator – Rodney Tom

Legislative District 48, Position 1 – Ross Hunter

Legislative District 48, Position 2 – Deb Eddy

King County County Council District 8 – Joe McDermott


Washington State Supreme Court:

Justice Position 5 – Barbara Madsen

Justice Position 6 – Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals, Div 1, District 1 – Michael Spearman

King County District Court

Northeast District, Position 6 – Michael Finkle

Northeast District, Position 7

Donna Tucker Dual Endorsement

Larry Mitchell Dual Endorsement

Shoreline District, Position 2 – Marcine Anderson

Southeast District, Position 2

Darrell Phillipson Dual Endorsement

David Meyer Dual Endorsement

Southeast District, Position 6

Matt Williams Dual Endorsement

David Tracy Dual Endorsement

Southwest District, Position 2 – Susan Mahoney

West District, Position 5 – Anne Harper

City of Seattle – Municipal Court

Position 1 – Ed McKenna

Position 3 – Steve Rosen

Position 5 – Willie Gregory

Position 6 – Karen Donohue

Initiative 1053 – NO

Initiative 1082 – NO

Initiative 1098 – YES

Initiative 1100 – NO

Initiative 1105 – NO

Initiative 1107 – NO

Referendum 52 -YES

HJR 4220 – YES

SJR 8225 _ NO

King County

Charter Amendment 1 -YES

Charter Amendment 2 -YES

Charter Amendment 3 – NO

Proposition 1 – YES

Seattle School District

Proposition 1 – YES

for more information on the initiatives and propositions go to the endorsements page.

You can get more information on the King County Democrats by going to their website. 

The Olympian Urges Voters to Reject Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

The Olympian has come out with an editorial strongly opposing Initiative 1053. It’s title “Initiative would give undemocratic veto power over budget” sums up one of the main arguments against Initiative 1053. Initiative 1053 would give 1/3 of the members of either House of the Washington State Legislature veto power over the state budget. What Eyman and special interests like Big Oil and Out of State Banks haven’t been able to achieve by electing a majority of legislators that support their position, they are trying to achieve by changing the rules by which Legislators can operate.

The Olympian’s editorial board recommends a vote against this Eyman initiative.

Why? We elect lawmakers to balance the budget. If we don’t like the way they do it, we can send them packing. But it’s unfair to take away one of their tools — tax increases. This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters.

That’s not right nor is it democratic.

The Olympian continues with pointing out that the public expects the government to provide services yet doesn’t want to be taxed. People like Tim Eyman drone on endlessly and erroneously about the tax and spend Legislators. Yet as the Olympian notes:

Contrary to popular opinion tax increases are not the first solution for budget writers. In the past three years, lawmakers have dealt with a $12 billion shortfall. They’ve made $5.1 billion in program and service cuts; taken $3.6 billion in stimulus funds, transferred $1.7 billion from other funds; drawn down the ending fund balance and used money from the rainy day fund.

They’ve raised taxes by $800 million.

That’s a measured approach — certainly not “raise taxes as a first option.”

This nation and this state are on a financial precipice. We can tip in either direction. That economic uncertainty has consumers hunkered down and frightened.

This is no time to let a fraction of lawmakers dictate how this state’s budget is balanced.

Budget writing is a complex business with huge risks and people’s very lives at stake.

Tim Eyman’s “legislate by initiative” philosophy is an unwarranted intrusion into that complex decision-making process.

Vote “no” on Initiative 1053.

What the Olympian neglects to mention is that over a million dollars was spent to collect signatures using paid signature gatherers to put I-1053 on the ballot.  The big spenders as noted by Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times were not average citizens but special interests.

Why is Big Oil helping bankroll I-1053? It’s because they oppose Legislative efforts to slightly increase toxic waste taxes to help cleanup storm water runoff. They would rather citizens bear the brunt of toxic waste problems including cleanup while they deposit bank record  profits as they have in recent years.

“…Tim Eyman went more corporate than usual this year.

His Initiative 1053, to limit the Legislature’s tax-raising ability, has the type of stick-it-to-the-man appeal that you might think would get Joe Six-Pack to the ramparts.

Yet it’s on the ballot due to big cash from out-of-state oil companies such as BP, Tesoro and Conoco, which want to block any new oil taxes. Only about 12 percent of his more than $1 million came from individuals, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.

I-1053 is an example of greed in action. Citizens need to vote NO on 1053 so polluters rather than citizens have to pay for cleanup or in it’s absence suffer continued polluting of Puget Sound and the environment.

For a list of other companies involved in greedy actions this years promoting special interest initiatives that pass the burden of taxes and/or lack of funding for public services  onto Washington taxpayers see http://www.stopgreed.org/

Initiative 1053 is a Corporate Power Grab to Control the Legislature

BP Corporation North America, Conoco Phillips, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Alaska Airlines, Liberty Mutual, US Bank. What do all these corporations and banks and insurance companies have in common? They helped bankroll I-1053 along with Tim Eyman.  They are doing a power grab trying to take away majority votes in our State Legislature and vest power in a minority of Legislators that would comprise only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House of the Legislature.

Why are they doing this? Because they can more easily convince 17 out of 49 Senators  to support their corporate no tax agenda than convince 25 Senators to do so.  It is a blatant power grab. Under I-1053, only 17 Senators (a 1/3 minority) out of 49 would be needed to oppose  repealing special interest tax exemptions like some out of state banks now get or opposing legislation to make polluters like the oil industry pay for cleaning up toxic waste caused by use of the products they sell.

Corporations and banks and insurance companies put their profits as their bottom line, not the public good.  Our elected  State Legislature helps to provide a balance between corporate profits and the public good. Framers of our Washington State Constitution understood that making decisions by a majority vote was the fairest way to make decisions. They wrote it into the Washington State Constitution in Article II, Section 22, which states the Legislature shall act by majority votes.

Trying to require a 2/3 vote for some decisions like taxes,  will specifically benefit corporations and their profits over the public health and welfare. Such a proposal is unconstitutional.  One could just as easily argue that because tax exemptions for businesses and corporations remove revenue from the State budget, that a 2/3 vote should be required to continue existing tax exemptions and create any new tax exemptions. Exemptions should not be given lightly because they place more of a burden on other taxpayers to make up for the revenue lost.

Of course the same corporations supporting I-1053 would oppose this. Yet it is just as logical as their proposal. The unfairness here is also that the current tax exemptions in state law were passed by a simple majority but under I-1053 a 2/3 vote would be required to repeal any exemption because it is defined as increasing taxes. It doesn’t matter whether the exemption has outlived its usefulness or no longer provides any benefit to the state or the public.

I-1053 is the height or arrogance.  The two previous times it was passed by voters (I-601 and I-960), it squeaked by with a scant 51% to 49% vote.  It could nowhere near muster the vote numbers it is now trying to impose on the Legislature.  Voters should reject I-1053 for what it is – a backdoor approach to gain more power and profits for corporate interests at the expense of the rest of the state.

 Voters may think they are limiting their taxes but it is the corporations that are laughing all the way to the bank as they rake in more profits and pass the cost of their doing business in the state onto the public.  I-1053 will decrease the power of the average voter in the Legislative process and increase power in the hands of the self selected corporate elite that can more easily control a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators to further their special interest agenda and pad their bottom line.

Check out the list of big corporate interests and banks and oil companies and think to yourself why they want the public to vote for I-1053. Do you  think it is about the public welfare and health of our state and its voters or is it about their profits?  Do you think it is about educating our children and caring for the needy and seniors or salaries for corporate executives and bankers ?

Here’s a list of the largest donors, many who are based out of state,  that paid to put I-1053 on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.  All told some $1,023,115 was raised by corporate and business interests and Eyman.

BP Corporation North America, Warrenville, IL  $65,000

Tesoro Industries Inc, San Antonio, TX $65,000

Washington Restaurant Association $59,000

Conoco Phillips, Huston, TX $50,000

Equilon, Huston, TX $50,000

Washington State Farm Bureau $50,000

Washington State Association of Realtors $25,000

Washington Bankers Association $25,000

Northwest Grocery Association Washington PAC, Wilsonville, OR $15,000

Kemper Holdings LLC $20,000

Community Bankers of Washington $10,000

Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding CA $10,000

Schnitzer Steel Ind, Portland, OR $10,000

Simpson, Tacoma, WA $10,000

Wells Fargo Bank, Minneapolis, MN $10,000

Port Blakeley Tree Farms, Tumwater, WA $8000

WA Aggregates and Concrete, Des Moines, WA $7,500
Martin Selig $5000

Alaska Airlines, $5000

Boise, Boise, ID $5000

Cowles Company, Spokane, WA $5000

Darigold, Seattle, WA $5000

Liberty Mutual, Dover, NH $5000

Plum Creek, Columbia Falls, MT $5000

Sherman Bakery, Shoreline, WA $5000

Simplot, Boise, ID $5000

US Bank, Robbinville, MN $5000

Washington Food Industry, $5000

Washington Food PAC, Portland, OR $5000

Washington Lodging Association PAC, $5000

Washington Oil Marketers Ass.,Port Orchard, WA $5000

Weyerhauser, Federal Way, WA $5000

Yakima Valley Growers-Shippers Association $5000

Madison and Hamilton Would Have Voted NO on I-1053

Two of the founders of our country, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, would have voted No on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 if they were alive today.  They spelled out their reasoning in The Federalist Papers in which they discussed the wisdom and necessity of majority rules for voting, instead of requiring a supermajority vote. Their arguments, which helped to frame the majority voting provisions in the US Constitution, are still as relevant today as when they were first written.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt to rewrite the rules by which Washington State Legislators make their decisions and vote. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Washington State Legislature shall make decisions by a majority vote. Eyman wants to change this to require that a 2/3 vote is needed by both Houses of the Legislature to pass revenue measures to fund state services or to repeal special interest tax exemptions that only benefit large corporations.

James Madison in The Federalist Papers No 58 had this to say about requiring supermajority votes:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No 22 likewise stated:

what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. …

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. …

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, … Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

These arguments for majority votes still ring true today. Washington State voters should vote NO on Initiative 1053 and uphold our State Constitution.