Tag Archives: Nov 4 2008 Elections

Late Returns Helping Republicans Gain Legislative Seats

Posted on November 12th, 2008 | Comments Off on Late Returns Helping Republicans Gain Legislative Seats

In a turn around, late counted votes in some Washington State Legislative races are seeing Democrats losing some races they thought they won. The end result could be that Republicans may see a net gain of 3 to 4 seats in the Legislature.

As reported by Bryan Bissell on PoliticklerWA.com the Republican gain is coming in both House and Senate races:

In the Senate 2nd Legislative District which includes parts of Pierce and Thurston County, Republican Randi Becker is now leading incumbent Democratic Senator Marilyn Rasmussen.

Randi Becker (Republican) …..29,908 (51.54%)
Marilyn Rasmussen (Democrat) …..28,098 (48.44%)

In the Senate 17th Legislative District which is Clark County Republican Senator Don Benton has turned a deficit on election day into a large lead over Democrat David Carrier.

Don Benton (Republican) …..29,169 (51.15%)
David Carrier (Democrat) …..27,796 (48.85%)

In the House 10th Legislative District which represents Island County and parts of Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Norma Smith currently has a 450 vote edge over Democrat Tim Knue who lead on election night.

Norma Smith (Republican) …..33,365 (50.34%)
Tim Knue (Democrat) …..32,915 (49.66%)

In the House 6th Legislative District in Spokane County, Democrat John Driscoll has seen his lead drop from about 1000 to 63 votes over incumbent Republican Representative John Ahern.. This race will obviously go into a recount.

John Driscoll (Democrat) …..34,805 (50.05%)
John Ahern (Republican) …..34,742 (49.95%)

In other turnovers already decided, Republican picked up seats in LD 6 and LD 26 .

In House Legislative District 6 in Spokane County, incumbent Democrat Don A Barlow was defeated by Republican Kevin Parker.

Kevin Parker (Republican) …..36,746 (52.86%)
Don A Barlow (Democrat) …..32,767 (47.14%)

In House Legislative District 26 in part of Kitsap and Pierce County, Republican Jan Angel defeated Democrat Kim Abel. The seat had been held by a Democrat, Pat Lantz, who retired.

Jan Angel (Republican) …..30,178 (53.41%)
Kim Abel (Democrat) …..26,322 (46.59%)

Democrats picked up 1 House seat in Legislative District 17 in Clark County. Democrat Jim Probst beat Republican Joseph James in a seat previously held by Republican Jim Dunn who lost in the Primary in August.

Tim Probst (Democrat) …..31,457 (55.86%)
Joseph James ((Republican) …..24,856 (44.14%)

You can keep track of the latest results in these races by going to the Secretary of State’s Election website.

Comments Off on Late Returns Helping Republicans Gain Legislative Seats

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , ,

Peter Goldmark is New Public Lands Commissioner

Posted on November 7th, 2008 | Comments Off on Peter Goldmark is New Public Lands Commissioner

The race for Public Lands Commissioner in Washington State is over. Democrat Peter Goldmark has been declared the winner by the Associated Press. He ousted 8 year incumbent Republican Doug Sutherland.

The latest returns on the Secretary of State’s election site posted at 10:16 AM today show the race still tight. Goldmark leads with 1,059,007 votes (50.85%) to Sutherland’s 1,023,553 votes (49.15%). The difference is some 35,454 votes.

Goldmark out raised his opponent $1,055,464 to $601,351. However special interests like Weyerhauser gave money to the so-called independent PAC- the Committee for Balanced Stewardship to raise an additional $573,000 to support Sutherland.

This allowed Weyerhauser to skirt normal campaign contribution limits of $1600 per election for a candidate for statewide offices and contribute $100,000 to support Sutherland’s candidacy.

In addition the independent PAC – Realtor’s Quality of Life spent $28,780 to support Sutherland.

Contributions directly to a candidate’s committee are limited to $1600 per election or a total of $3200 for both the primary and general election. This is supposedly to reduce the influence of large money in campaigns but the loophole of unlimited contributions to independent PAC’s show how easy it is to skirt this limit.

The Washington Governor’s race also saw huge spending by so called independent PACs. The BIAW through it’s PACs contributed over $7 million to unsuccessfully try to defeat Democratic Governor Gregoire.

Both the Governor’s race and Public Lands Commissioner race were wins for Democrats being hit with huge amounts of special interest money. There is a real question that if Barack Obama had not been on the ballot as to whether or not these Democrats would still have won. The closeness of the two races raises the issue, particularly since some analysts are saying national issues affected many local races this year and that this may be a trend. Certainly the uniqueness and turnout of the Presidential race was a factor.

The idea of trying to limit the influence of huge amounts of special interest money going to PACs in Washington State is a legitimate issue to raise. The diluting by unlimited special interest contributions of the voice of those who abide by campaign spending limits is something that needs to be addressed in Washington State.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has done an analysis of state limitations on contributions to political action committees and the result is interesting. Here are some of the limits for individuals giving to PACs:

Alaska $500/yr, Arkansas $5000/yr, California $6000/election, Colorado $500/2 year cycle, Connecticut, $2000/yr, Florida $500/election, Hawaii $1000 election, Kentucky $1500/yr, Louisiana $100,000/4 yr cycle, Maryland, $4000/4 yr cycle, Massachusetts $500/year, New Hampshire $5000/election, New Jersey $7200/yr, North Carolina $4000/election, Ohio $10,670/yr, Oklahoma $5000 yr, Rhode Island $1000/yr, South Carolina $3500/yr, Vermont $2000/2 yr cycle

Meanwhile Washington State allows unlimited money from an individual to go to a PAC. Our only limit is that during the last 21 days before an election, no contributor may donate more than $5000 to a candidate or political committee.

The other limit some states impose on contributions to PACs is to limit corporate and union contributions. These include:

Alabama $500/election, Arkansas $5000/calender yr, California $6000/election, Connecticut $2000/calendar year, Florida $500/election, Hawaii $1000/election, Indiana $5000 state candidates, Louisiana $100,000 4 yr cycle, Maryland $4000/4 yr cycle, Mississippi $1000/calendar year, New Hampshire $5000/election, New Jersey $7200/yr, New York $5000 total/yr, South Carolina $3500/calendar yr, and Vermont $2000//2 yr cycle.

Meanwhile Washington State allows unlimited corporate and union contributions to PACs with the 21 day rule exception above limiting contributions to no more than $5000 in the last 21 days before an election.

Going even further, a number of states ban all corporate and union contributions to PACs including Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

We can do things differently in Washington State. While the US Supreme Court has overturned strict spending limits, they have agreed that reasonable limits on contributions are acceptable.

Equalizing corporate and union and individual contributions to PACs to be the same limits as those to candidate campaign committees seems a reasonable way to reduce the influence of special interests with huge bankrolls from overwhelming the voice of individual voters.

A limit of $1600 to contributions to candidate campaign committees and independent PACs per election would help stop the flood of special interest contributions trying to outshout the voices of individual citizens engaging in the electoral process.

Comments Off on Peter Goldmark is New Public Lands Commissioner

Posted in campaign finance, Elections

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Peter Goldmark Cautiously Optimistic About Winning

Posted on November 6th, 2008 | Comments Off on Peter Goldmark Cautiously Optimistic About Winning

In an e-mail sent out today by the Peter Goldmark for Public Lands Commissioner, Goldmark states:

“We always knew this was going to be a close election. As of 3:30pm today, we have 50.89% of the votes. With many ballots left to be counted, especially in King, Snohomish, Pierce and Spokane Counties, we are cautiously optimistic about last night’s returns.”

The Secretary of State’s election website gives the following breakdown as of 5:05 PM today:

Peter Goldmark……861,395 votes …… 50.70%
Doug Sutherland….837,727 votes ….. 49.30%

A county by county breakdown show Goldmark winning in 6 counties by the following margins:

King County ……….63.17% to 36.83%
Jefferson County ……….59.78% to 40.22%
Whatcom County ……….54.14% to 45.86%
Snohomish County ………52.23% to 47.77%
Cowlitz County ……….52.19% to 47.81%
Okanogan County ………51.20% to 48.80%

Sutherland is slightly ahead in Pierce County by 52.77% to 47.23% and in Spokane County by 51.23% to 48.77%.

Obviously the outcome will be affected by the proportion of votes coming from each County that has not yet been counted. Any votes remaining from King County, which represents about a third of the state’s voters, heavily tilts the results towards Goldmark winning. Because return ballots mailed by voters yesterday may still not have been received by the counties, this race remains up in the air and will for at least a few more days.

King County election results were last updated at 2:30 P.M. today. They report that out of 1,108,128 registered voters in King County that they have counted, some 251,439 poll ballots were cast and some 194,753 absentee ballots have been counted. This total of 446,252 votes counted so far represents some 40.2% of the voters. Turnout is estimated to be around 80% or more so only about half the potential votes cast have been counted in King County as of now.

6:37 PM update 11/5/2008

Peter Goldmark …..867,784 …..50.68%
Doug Sutherland ….844,403 ….49.32%

Right now Goldmark leads by 23,381 votes.

Comments Off on Peter Goldmark Cautiously Optimistic About Winning

Posted in Democrats, Elections

Tagged , , , ,

Governor Chris Gregoire Deserves to be Re-elected

Posted on October 20th, 2008 | 2 comments

Democratic Governor Gregoire has been one of Washington State’s best Governors. Her problem is that she is not one to toot her horn but she has been busy making our state better and addressing the problems we face. If she has a weakness it is in communicating just how good a Governor she has been.

She has a good record of accomplishments to run on. For example during her 4 years we have seen action on a number of environmental issues.

Under her watch we have seen Washington State step up to addressing cleaning up Puget Sound – a long overdue action.

The state passed the Clean Car Act to join with California and other states in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency that the Bush Administration refused to address.

The state has enacted a bill to deal with toxic toys that the Bush Administration also refused to act on.

Legislation was passed to support local agriculture and to provide locally grown food to schools.

Green Jobs legislation was enacted to start Washington state on the road to new jobs and cleaner energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Gregoire has been active in dealing with climate change, including the Western Governor’s Initiative and the Washington Climate Action bill.

These issues cover just a few of the changes Governor Gregoire has helped to implement.

Meanwhile what can you think of that Republican Dino Rossi has done in the last four year’s to address these or other issues?

Besides smiling and saying he’s for change, what has Rossi done in the last four years on these issues? Nothing. He is running a blank slate campaign – he is talking in non-specific sound bites and ignoring the issues so no one really knows what he will do because he won’t tell us.

That blank slate campaign approach almost got him elected last time.It would be a mistake for Washington voters to repeat the mistake made with George Bush.

Maybe you want to go get a drink with Dino after watching his ads because he seems like such a nice guy but do you really want to trust someone with our state’s future who is running a blank slate campaign and refusing to tell the public want he will do as Governor besides cut the budget.

And even then he isn’t telling you what he would cut. The public deserves and needs more honesty from someone running for Governor. Too much is at stake.

Rossi’s smile in fact is only a campaign gimmick – a technique Rossi learned through his years in real estate. As quoted in the Seattle Times, “I’ve found you can do pretty much anything you want if you do it with a smile on your face,” Rossi said. “It’s amazing what you can get away with if you do it with a smile on your face.”

Voters deserve more than a smile. They deserve someone that will be straightforward and tell them what they believe and what they intend to do. Rossi refuses to do that.

Chris Gregoire has a strong public record and is not afraid to speak out about her positions. She has proved herself to be a competent and capable Governor.

I urge you to vote to re-elect Chris Gregoire as Governor of Washington State on November 4th… She has stepped up and done the job to help protect our environment and move our state in the right direction. She has earned our vote of support.

2 Comments

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Environment

Tagged , , , , , ,

McCain – Palin Drill Team Marching to Beat of Oil Drums

Posted on September 16th, 2008 | 1 comment

One of the obscenities of the recent Republican Convention was the chanting of “Drill Baby Drill.” Obscured by the novelty of a new dancing Republican puppet in the form of the previously nationally unknown Governor of Alaska, John McCain shamelessly continued to promote more of the antiquarian Bush Era perversion of drilling and ignoring the perilous future of being tied to oil, both national and international.

Continuing the oil economy drains American capital from being reinvested in our own country in alternative renewable energy. It continues to tie our future national economy to a ecologically dangerous fossil fuel industry. It promotes an industry that is profit motivated only and not concerned about American energy security or the impacts on consumer’s pocketbooks.

“Drill Baby Drill” should raise the hair on the back of any independence loving American because of its backward looking vision that obscures the future of the world in a haze of global warming gases. It ignores the need for the nation and the world to change their profligate burning of carbon based fuels. It is like trying to promote the use of manual typewriters in the computer age.

John McCain lacks vision in his support of the oil economy. He is a man so desperate to win the Presidency that he has thrown common sense out the window and is pandering to the least of our nation’s sensibilities and wasting precious time and resources needed to move to a post oil economy.

“Drill Baby Drill ” says John McCain is not really serious about attacking global warming. Just as his pandering proposal to drop the gas tax this summer was a shortsighted attempt to appeal to irrationality for votes, the idea that drilling for oil in America is some type of energy solution for the future is pandering to the lowest common denominator of selfishness and greed of the oil companies.

Our nation needs to come up with practical real solutions to find a mix of environmentally sound energy policies that also reinvest in America and American jobs rather than sending money to the Middle East and other countries so they can come back and buy up America.

The New York Times in a recent editorial entitled “John McCain’s Energy Follies” noted that “increasing oil production remains the centerpiece of his strategy” They stress that “a nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while owning only 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness or self- sufficiency.”

Will McCain really make any effort to make a transition to a post carbon energy economy that emphasizes wind, solar, geothermal or energy efficiency?

We’ve all heard many campaign promises from candidates, broken once they are elected. For McCain it is possible to determine what he will do on energy not based on promises but on his past actions or inactions. That unfortunately does not bode well for a reasoned and enlightened change in America’s energy policies if McCain is elected President.

The record shows that John McCain missed critical votes for renewable energy while he was running for President. If you think John McCain is going to support renewable energy in any serious way consider the following written by Thomas Friedman for the New York Times. In a commentary entitled, Eight Strikes and You’re Out“,

” …on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.”

Actions speak louder than any words. It would be a mistake to count on John McCain leading us to a renewable energy future. “Drill Baby Drill” and free market economics seem to be his political philosophy. The free market economy has been great for the giant oil corporations in America but a disaster for energy independence and lessening global warming impacts. Voting for McCain would be a vote for continuing things as they are. Now is the time when we need to change to a post carbon energy future. McCain isn’t going to do that.

1 Comment

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Energy, Obama, Republicans

Tagged , , , , , , ,

King County Charter Amendments on November Ballot Need Scrutiny

Posted on September 11th, 2008 | Comments Off on King County Charter Amendments on November Ballot Need Scrutiny

Every 10 years King County in Washington State reviews its charter and has a citizens panel recommend changes. The Charter Review Commission came up with a series of amendments earlier this year that they recommended to the King County Council to be placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot.

The King County Council ultimately voted to place 6 Charter Amendments on the November 4, 2008 ballot and will consider additional ones for a vote next year.

In addition two citizen initiatives proposing Charter Amendments are on the November ballot. Initiative 25 for a nonpartisan elected elections official is now Charter Amendment 1 and Initiative 26 requiring that King County elected officials be non partisan is now Charter Amendment 8.

Initiative 25 (now Charter Amendment 1) is opposed by the Municipal League of King County:
“The integrity of the elections process demands independence and professional management in the elections function of government. Consistent with the Municipal League position on record that leadership positions in King County government which require administrative and management expertise should be appointed, we oppose making the position an elected position…. “

The League of Women Voters of King County also opposes Charter Amendment 1.

As noted in a Seattle Times article last year if Charter Amendment 1 passes there will be a costly special election to elect the new Elections Director in February 2009. There will be no primary vote for this office.

Initiative 26 (now Charter Amendment 8) was a Republican sponsored measure intended to hide party identification. Majority Rules Blog opposes Charter Amendment 8 because it will make it more difficult to determine what political philosophy a candidate actually supports. It is an attempt by Republicans, who paid signature gatherers to place this proposed amendment on the ballot, to shed their party label and hide their political positions behind campaign slogans and rhetoric that obscure their real political goals.

Charter Amendment 8 will make it more difficult to know where candidates stand on issues. The reality is that no Republican now is forced to run as a Republican under our current voting system of the top 2 candidates going on to the general election. No one is required to state a party affiliation now. Charter Amendment 8 is not needed and should be voted down.

It is also important to note that Charter Amendment 8 also sets up a non-partisan redistricting commission. Redistricting now is done by a Committee of 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats who jointly select a 5th member. If Charter Amendment 8 passes and so called non-partisan members are selected, the current political balance may well be lost and the commission dominated by members of 1 party or the other depending on the appointment process.

An 84 page King County staff report on proposed charter amendments 2 – 7 is at http://mkcclegisearch.metrokc.gov/attachments/31053.pdf

There is currently an updated link at the King County Elections site to all the ordinances passed by the King County Council that also provides more detail on what the charter amendments do. Pro and Con statements are present as well as the actual text of the ordinances.

I have also provided links below to each of the charter amendments if you want to check more detail, pro and con statements and read the actual ordinances on a specific charter amendment

King County Charter Amendment No. 1

Elected Elections Director

Shall the King County Charter be amended to provide that the position of county director of elections be created as a nonpartisan elected office?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31868&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 2

Prohibiting Discrimination

Shall Section 840 of the King County Charter be amended to add disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression to the prohibited grounds for discrimination in county employment and county contracting, and to limit the prohibition against discrimination in county contracting to contracts with nongovernmental entities, as provided in Ordinance No. 16204?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31869&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 3

Regional Committees

Shall Sections 230.10, 270.20 and 270.30 of the King County Charter be amended to reduce the number of county council members on regional committees, establish a vice chair position on regional committees, authorize the regional policy committee to adopt its own work program, add authority for regional committees to initiate legislation, modify regional committee procedures, and authorize the addition of nonvoting members to the water quality committee, as provided in Ordinance No. 16205?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31870&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 4

Additional Qualifications for Elected Officials

Shall Section 630 of the King County Charter be amended to authorize the county council to establish additional qualifications for separately elected officials who head executive departments, as provided in Ordinance No. 16206?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31871&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 5

Establishing Forecast Council and Office of Economic and Financial Analysis

Shall the King County Charter be amended to require the establishment of a forecast council and an office of economic and financial analysis, as provided in Ordinance No. 16207?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31872&eid=1226

Budget Deadlines

Shall Sections 410 and 420 of the King County Charter be amended to impose deadlines that are twenty days earlier than existing deadlines for county agencies to submit budget information to the county executive and for the county executive to present a proposed budget to the county council, as provided in Ordinance No. 16208?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31873&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 7

Charter Amendment by Citizen Initiative

Shall King County Charter Section 800 be amended to establish a new process for citizens to directly propose amendments to the King County Charter and to increase the signature threshold for citizen-initiated charter amendments from 10% to 20% of the votes cast in the last election for county executive, as provided in Ordinance No. 16221?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31874&eid=1226

King County Charter Amendment No. 8

Nonpartisan Elections

Shall the King County Charter be amended to make the offices of King county executive, King county assessor and King county council nonpartisan, and to establish the nonpartisan selection of districting committee members?

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31875&eid=1226

Fuse Washington recommends support for Charter Amendments 2-7 and No votes on Charter Amendments 1 and 8.

This post was revised and updated on Oct 27, 2008 to add more information.

Comments Off on King County Charter Amendments on November Ballot Need Scrutiny

Posted in Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , , , ,

November 4, 2008 Washington State Ballot Measures

Posted on September 11th, 2008 | 1 comment

11/05/2008 8 AM Update:

Initiative 985 has been decisively defeated by the Washington voters while Initiative 1000 and 1029 have been passed by wide margins.

Initiative 985 41% yes/59% no
Initiative 1000 59% yes/41% no
Initiative 1029 74% yes/26% no

For latest update and specific vote numbers go to the Washington State Secretary of State’s election webpage for statewide initiatives.

previous post:

Three statewide initiatives will be on the November 4, 2008 Washington State ballot.

Majority Rules Blog recommends you vote:

No on Initiative 985
Yes on Initiative 1000
Yes on Initiative 1029

BALLOT MEASURE I-985
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 985 concerns transportation.

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes.

No on 985 – http://www.noon985.com/

BALLOT MEASURE I-1000 (Death With Dignity)
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns allowing certain terminally ill competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions.

This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents medically predicted to die within six months, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician. The measure requires two oral and one written request, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of an informed patient decision. Physicians, patients and others acting in good faith compliance would have criminal and civil immunity.

Yes on I-1000 http://itsmydecision.org/

BALLOT MEASURE I-1029
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1029 concerns long-term care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

This measure would require long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides based on an examination, with exceptions; increase training and criminal background check requirements; and establish disciplinary standards and procedures.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
Beginning January 1, 2010, this measure would require certification for long-term care workers for the elderly and persons with disabilities, requiring a written examination, increased and additional criminal background checks. Continuing education would be required in order to retain certification. Disciplinary standards and procedures would be applied to long-term care workers who are certified as home care aides. Certain workers would be exempt based on prior employment, training or other circumstances.

Yes on I-1029 – http://www.yeson1029.org/

Note – State Ballot Measures Nov 2008 – for actual text go to http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2008

1 Comment

Posted in Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , ,

Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Posted on August 2nd, 2008 | Comments Off on Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Democrats in King County have been asleep at the wheel and are about to crash unless they snap awake. The Republicans under Peter Von Reichbauer and Republican dollars have been busy trying to change the electoral landscape in their favor by putting Initiative 26 before voters.

Financial backers of both Dino Rossi and the BIAW are behind this measure.

Initiative 26 would be passed by a 2 step process. It is both on the August 19, 2008 Primary and the November 4, 2008 General Election ballots. It would amend the King County Charter to make the offices of King County Executive, King County Assessor and King County Council members nonpartisan.

The sleeper in all this is that it would also make the selection of the re-redistricting committee members nonpartisan. That means you would no longer have a balance between the two major parties but would have no idea of where these members stood politically. These members would draw the boundaries of the council districts.

Looking at who funded this measure to get on the ballot tells you who thinks they would benefit. As Josh Feit wrote on the Slog in March in a post entitled “Nonpartisan My Ass”:

“Proof that the idea is a GOP ploy: Citizens for Independent Government (the group pushing the initiative) has collected $145,000 and, according to finance records, more than 90 percent of the money comes from three donors: George Rowley, John Stanton, and John Hennessy.

Rowley, CEO of Rowley Properties, is one of the biggest supporters of Republican candidates and issues in this state. Dating back to 2002, his donations have included: $8,000 to Dino Rossi; $95,000 to the $172,250 to the Washington State Republican Party; $60,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee; $28,000 to the King County Republican Central Committee, General; $125,850 to the King County Republican Central Committee; and $6,000 to John Carlson in 2000.

Telecom mogul Stanton has an equally impressive list of contributions to conservative recipients: $5,300 to Rossi; $255,500 to the Washington State Republican Party; $100,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee; $30,750 to the King County Republican Central Comm Non-exempt; $25,000 to the BIAW’s PAC, ChangePAC; and $4,800 to John Carlson in 2000.

Nuprecon CEO Hennessy: $6,100 to Dino Rossi; $115,000 to ChangePAC (and ChangePAC 2004); $5,000 to the Washington State Republican Party; $10,000 to the King County Repub; and $3,400 to Carlson in 2000.

 

So the backers of I-26 are major supporters of Dino Rossi , John Carlson and the state Republican Party as well as the BIAW – the Building Industry Association of Washington which is behind Change PAC.

The Republicans know that voters in King County reject the politics of George Bush and Karl Rove, the divisiveness of politics like those Newt Gingrich supported and the corruption of politicians like Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. So they want to hide behind a nonpartisan label and not tell the voters what their political beliefs are.

Initiative 26 isn’t needed. Any politician can now run as an independent on the ballot, particularly under the Top 2 Primary System. Republicans do not need to declare they are Republicans if they are so afraid of the label and ashamed of their party.

But Initiative 26 wants to also prevent Democrats running as Democrats by prohibiting them from being identified as Democrats on the ballot. They want to deny voters the right to know when they vote which party best represents the views of the candidate. Voters will be less informed as to the political philosophy that a candidate supports. This will allow more Republicans an opportunity to hide their true political leanings behind a non-partisan label and sneak into office with a barrage of money from the BIAW or the Republican Party or Chamber of Commerce.

I-26 takes away voter choice and allows for big spending campaigns by special interests to mask a candidate’s true politics. We have a system that works. The voters have put Democrats in charge of the County Council and this is the Republicans campaign to try to regain control by not telling the voters the political party that the candidate belongs to.

Vote No on Initiative 26 Part 1 on August 19, and November 4, 2008! Part 1 asks”Should either of these proposed ordinances to place a charter amendment before the voters in November 2008 be adopted?”

In case question one wins you have a second chance If you want to retain some ability to id candidates by party. Vote for the King County Council’s alternative to I-26 in the second part of the ballot question.

Part 2 reads “Irregardless of whether you voted yes or no above, if one of the proposed ordinances is adopted, which one should it be?” Vote for the Council-proposed alternative.

Comments Off on Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Posted in campaign finance, Democrats, Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , , , , ,