Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 144 of 177)

They… won’t… let… him … post… Legislative press releases on his campaign website! Oh my freaking God, what a travesty!!

Turns out Rep. Toby Nixon wants to cut and past some press releases written for him by his legislative staff onto his campaign website. Also turns out this is against the rules (for Democrats, Republicans and theoretical Libertarians) and he is being asked to take them down. Turns out that the legislative caucus websites basically become blank during campaign season so as not to run imply that state money is being used for campaigns.

Stephan casts this as a “public information” sort of bad thing, that by asking Nixon to take the state-funds written press releases down, they’re also asking him to take information away from the public. Oh, ok. Because there is no other way for people to find out what their legislators are doing, other than through legislative caucus press releases.

Two possible ways they could get around this one.

1. Get a nice eager Young Republican intern (or paid staffer) to rewrite the press releases. This isn’t that hard, shouldn’t take anyone very long. In most circles its called plagiarism, most students these days are familiar with the technique. Shouldn’t be a problem.

Take these rewritten press releases and then post them on your website. For of course they were actually written by your campaign staff, but were based on publicly available information.

2. Understand the Internet. Just because something is taken off a website, doesn’t mean it is gone. Both Google Cache and the internet archive are really good at finding old versions of websites, such as the House Republican Caucus newspapge. In this case, Google Cache wins though.

For example: House approves loans for public works projects benefiting East King County communities

While they’re copies of the original works of state employees, they aren’t actually hosted on state servers, possibly getting around the letter, if not the intent, of the law.

UPDATE: Here’s Nixon’s letter and press release on the topic. Nothing new to add, but it was funny to see him mention the difference between a paper society and a digital one. FYI, Michael O’Connell and Emmett O’Connell, no relation.

Ealier I wrote a bit about the Ranked Choice amendment in Pierce County. Kelly Haughton of the Charter Review Board is writing a Ranked Choice blog. And, it isn’t half bad.

Could the Democratic majority in the legislature and the Democratic governor get the Grange to put their guns down and craft a deal on elections in Washington? The end result being an Instant Runoff Voting system?

For more information on how IRV works, go here.

Assume two things happen by December:

1. The Democratic Party maintains its lead in both the state House and Senate.

2. The Grange puts together a campaign and files an initiative for a totally non-partisan primary.

I’m not that well informed enough to know if the first is going to happen, but what I haven’t heard there is much of a chance of Democrats losing our majorities.

And as for the second, from what the Grange folks have been saying, they’re on their way to developing their initiative, either for 2007 or 2008. Seattle Times:

“This is our most viable option, no party designation,” said Dan Hammock, spokesman for the Grange

…

“Now is the time for the voters of this state to unite to take control of elections back from the political parties,” state Grange President Terry Hunt said. “The Grange will go forward with the top-two initiative, and follow the court’s direction by removing any and all party designations on the ballot.”

But, instead of pushing for a Top Two non-partisan qualifying primary, what if the Grange dropped its guns and joined the Democratic Party majority in the legislature to craft an Instant Runoff Vote bill? While it seems the Grange is dead set on resurecting the original 1935 Open Primary, Democratic activists across the state seem to like the idea of IRV.

IRV has the unique position of actually being what the Grange would like (allowing anyone to vote for any candidate) and being a political possibility with at least one of the parties in the state. For example at least two county Democratic parties included IRV in their platforms recently (Whatcom this year and Thurston in 2004).

Also, famous rocker, Granger and Democrat, Krist Novoselic is a big supporter of IRV (his post at Washblog here), and could help make this happen.

In terms of convincing legislators on and IRV system, it is a matter of convincing them that first the Grange’s non-partisan primary initiative would actually be filed and win. Given the above quote, the Grange is going to do it. Whether it would win or not, remember I-872 won by over 60 percent and won in every county Washington.

And, two they would need to think that IRV would have to be a system they could live with. Given number one would be true, would they rather live in a world where their political affiliations didn’t appear beside their names? I’m not a legislature, I don’t really know, but I have an idea.

Sort of a preview of this possibility, an IRV charter amendment is on the ballot in Pierce County this fall. It uses the same type of language that you would assume the next Grange iniative would use “Want Something Different than the Pick A Party Primary?” and “Any Candidate, Any Party.”

It also has the support of a diverse and bi-partisan group of Pierce County politicians, including two sitting county council members (on Dem and one R) the Republican auditor candidate, a couple of Democratic PCOs and a Bonney Lake city council member. If Proposition 3 ends up passing, it would say a lot about whether IRV has broad support.

A year or so ago when I wrote about meetup.com starting to charge for their services, I complained that the DNC needed to come out with their own out of the box solution. Since then DFA launched theirs, Townhall did so too and some private sector replacements have sprung up.

Yesterday, though, the DNC launched their own package, including a meetup type application, Party Builder:

Over a year ago, a few of us here in the DNC’s Internet department started talking about devolving our technology to users. After all, you’re Democrats too, so why were we the only ones with a blog on Democrats.org? Well, after a lot of work by a lot of people, now you do — along with a lot of other things.

We’re pushing out a group of tools today we call PartyBuilder. A literal name for obvious reasons: the Party belongs to you, and it’s built upon the work and passion so many of you have put into things like door knocking, phone banking and, yes, contributing. Now, we’re giving you the tools to build it online.

There’s a lot here. Social networking, grouping, a community blog, the events tool you’ve used for things like the 50-State Canvass or the Democratic Reunion, personal fundraising tools, and a petitions and letters section that we’re going to expand on. You should take a minute to look through it…it’s exciting stuff.

I’d like to tell you more, but I can’t seem to log in. I know I have an account with democrats.org, it won’t let me create a new account with my email address, but it also won’t let me sign in with it. Even when I request a new password. Weirdness.

Anyway.

This is a good description of the different tools. I’m mostly interested in the local meeting tool, friends tool (which could replicate the “getting the newbies involved” greatness of meetup) and the My Friends tool (kind of like MySpace for Democrats?).

One thing I hope happens is that the CIOs of the various state parties and the tech geeks at the county and local parties latch onto this and try to meld as much of what we’re doing to what is going on at the national level. Actually, that would be something tell you could happen if I could sign in. A great idea would be to have an RSS feed based on a search of local events from democrats.org. That feed could be published on the sites of local Democrat clubs. Would be pretty cool.

When Sen. Tim Sheldon sent $10K to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee in 2002, $7K of it came before the election when the Republicans took back control of the Senate. While $10K may not be a lot in the grand scheme of things, it may have actually swung the election, it was so freakin’ close.

Said Chris Vance in 2002:

The post-election lay of the land is this: Republicans lost two seats in the state House and are in a 46-52 minority. In the state Senate, however, the GOP came from behind to capture a 25-24 majority

…

In the campaigns for state Senate, on the other hand, Republicans showed the strength of our get-out-the-vote drive. Of the seven competitive Senate races, the GOP won six. Winning the majority in one chamber of the state Legislature — while the House and governor’s office are still controlled by the Democrats — is no small feat. It means Republicans will be able to help set the agenda for the upcoming legislative session.

So who were the Democrats that lost to Tim Sheldon and the RSCC in 2002?

Laurie Dolan lost to Jim West (yes, that Jim West) by less than 2,000 votes out of almost 50,000 cast in LD 6.

Betty Ringlee lost to Robert Oke 49.5 percent to 50.4 percent up in Kitsap County. This is the same seat that Rep. Derek Kilmer has a good chance at winning this year, if Sheldon doesn’t ship money off to his opponent, Lois McMahan (yes, that Lois McMahan).

Yvonne Ward lost to Pam Roach (yes, Pam Roach) by just over a thousand votes and a couple of percentage points in LD 31.

Georgia Gardner lost in the 42nd to Dale Brandland, where a Green Party candidate pulled enough votes that would have put Gardner on top.

Phil Doerflein (47 percent) lost to David Schmidt (53 percent) in LD 44.

Deborah Jacobson (45 percent) lost to Stephen Johnson (55 percent) in LD 47.

It would have been thrown out anyway, because I’m sure the Republicans would have taken it this far too. But, that isn’t my real reason.

In 2004, political participation spiked. But, not in a way that benefited organized politics or parties.

More people tried to influence how others voted:

A lot more people put a sticker on their car or wore a button:

But only a small amount of additional people attended political meetings in 2004. This increase probably has to do with the increase in non-traditional meetings available (such as meetups) that the parties never intended to happen:

And the percentage of people who actually “worked” for a candidate during 2004 stayed exactly the same as in 2000, 2002 and in 2004:

Even though more people were engaged in 2004 it didn’t translate into the deep sort of engagement that turns people out during March of an off season to build the party. Our local and state parties couldn’t translate increase participation in 2004 into increased participation later on because we aren’t built to catch those kinds of citizens.

So, what does this have to do with the Top Two primary?

The most blistering attack on the Top Two is that it hurts parties, and therefore hurts democracy. I’d agree that parties are good for Democracy, but the kinds of parties that are built for closed primaries are not the kinds of parties people are seeking to join. In essence, we need parties that are built for people that tried to get their friends to vote a certain way and put bumper stickers on their cars, but didn’t attend a political meeting.

As politics is becoming less traditional, moving out into the world of personal relationships, so do the parties (or at least the Democratic Party does, I don’t really care what the Republicans do).

I like the ideas of the Blue Tiger Democrats in this regard. They say the local parties should be as interested in civic engagement on the local level as they are with winning elections. The more people see the Democratic Party itself as a force for good, the way you see the Shriners or the Lions, and less as an organization that sues to overturn a popular initiative and win elections for the sake of winning elections, the better.

Granted, the Top Two primary is gone and was obviously unconstitutional. But, I would have loved to see the party that thrived under those conditions. How would you have built a party, with broad participation, if you had an open primary system?

UPDATE: Which Democrats did he help beat in 2002?

From the Olympian chat today:

Sal, Olympia: Why do you still believe you can call yourself a Democrat when you voted for George Bush and gave $10,000 of your surplus campaign funds to the GOP?

Sheldon: I certainly call myself a Democrat. I’m a member of the party. I voted for Bush, but I also voted for Patty Murray. I voted for Dino Rossi and also Brad Owen, a Democrat. I didn’t give $10,000 to the GOP. I do give money to organizations that may have supported Republicans. I also give money to organizations that do support Democrats.

From the Public Disclosure Commission:

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
11/18/2002
$3,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
ST. SENATOR SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/09/2002
$2,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS SENATE

REPUB CAMP COMM
10/16/2002
$2,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
ST. SENATOR SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/04/2002
$1,500.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/11/2002
$1,500.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY- SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS

You can find the same information by going here, choosing the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and sorting by contributor name and then amount.

The Senate Republican Campaign Committee may have given money to Republicans? You’re kidding.

While the SRCC may not the “GOP” by the strictest definition, it is a GOP organization, and that kind of parsing is trying to get away from saying “I support Republicans” while still being able to do it.

Sheldon is trying to win a closed Democratic primary, and as long as he still calls himself a Democrat, he should at least try to act like one.

The 9th Circuit agreed with Zinny, the I-872 Primary system does too much harm to political parties. I’ll probably write about this later some more, but this leaves me with two thoughts for now:

1. We missed our chance. The Democratic Party didn’t have to join with the Republicans to overturn the system. I-872 was passed overwhelmingly by Washington voters. Us who are active in party politics have to ask ourselves the hard questions of why this is.

Why don’t people want to be associated, good or ill, with a party label? Why don’t more people get involved in party politics? I don’t think its them, I really think its us.

2. What will the Washington State Grange do next? In Oregon they think they had an idea that would have passed court muster (it didn’t end up getting on the ballot) and in Pierce County they’re putting non-partisan elections on the ballot.

I don’t know if there is actually a middle ground for the Grange to howe here, but they might just go all the way to statewide, non-partisan.

All three of the Democratic state legistors in Tim Eyman’s district (the fightin’ 21st) are not facing anyone come September 19th or in November. Not even token Republican opposition. Even here in the flumoxin’ 22nd, one of the safest D districts in the state both of our state representatives are facing token Republicans.

What is even worse is that Eyman was asked to run:

Sen. Eyman? Hewitt says he pressured Tim Eyman, the state’s foremost initiative sponsor, to challenge Democrat Shin. He says Eyman declined, choosing to stay an outside activist.

Eyman tries to point out through his initiatives how out of touch state legislators are from the people. That his efforts are a blow to this disconnection between electeds and the electors. That may be true (I happen to be a fan of the intiative process, but not Eyman or his ideas), but the worst thing about his point is that he is doing nothing to solve the problem.

Rather, he is taking advantage of this disconnection. He could run for office and be an example of the right kind of elected official. The initiative process is our last fail safe for when the legislative process doesn’t work. But, Eyman isn’t willing to give the legislative process a chance before going to the backup.

Tim Eyman makes pretty good hay knocking around legislators, so why are the three Democratic legislators in his district not facing any opposition? (I know this is my second post on the same article this morning. Sue me, I’m unimaginative).

I know Eyman has used the excuse before as to why he doesn’t run for office that he is more effective running initiatives, but isn’t this also true:

Seattle Times:

Competition “is a very important part of the process. It makes us better public servants to be questioned and challenged,” he said. “And I have seen a number of times when somebody is not expected to have a chance and they end up winning. That’s not happening much anymore because they [the parties] don’t field candidates.”

Critics contend the lack of competition can lead to a less-responsive Legislature because politicians who don’t have to worry about getting kicked out of office are less likely to listen to their voters.

If what Eyman wants is a more responsive legislature, wouldn’t it be important for people to run against office holders?