History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: old Better Donkey (Page 3 of 3)

What is the Grange’s next move?

Big political ideas, sometimes translated into initiatives, often bounce back and forth between Oregon and Washington. Next fall we’ll like vote on a Washington edition of Oregon’s gutting of their land use laws. But, both states might also vote to change how they vote in the first place, possibly changing both systems to nonpartisan statewide.

Oregon already has a One Ballot group that is making some serious headway in earned media. From the Eugene Register-Guard:

Every voter, regardless of party registration, would receive the same ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would move on to the general election in November. The only exception would be presidential primaries, in which voters technically choose delegates to national nominating conventions.

Increasing numbers of Oregon voters choose not to register as members of any political party. Among voters under the age of 25, a plurality are neither Democrats nor Republicans. These voters are excluded from participating in primary elections, except for nonpartisan races and ballot measures.

I’m not sure if this is a copy of our failed Top Two primary, or if its an actual nonpartisan system, but it shows that there is interest in Oregon to go down the road we’re already on. One Ballot mirrors what the Washington State Grange, which sponsored the Top Two Primary system a year ago, is doing now in penning a totally nonpartisan election system initiative. After losing in court over the summer, the Grange seems to be going to the “nuclear option” by running an initiative declaring all elected offices nonpartisan.

The parties, at this point, would probably fight this new initiative harder than they fought I-872. I would argue that the Democratic Party not join such a fight, but let the Republicans take it alone. If the GOP wins, well the Democratic party leadership still gets what it wants. If they lose, then the Republican Party looks like the election closing jerks they already are.

Plus, it gives the Democratic Party a chance to change itself into an more open, grassroots party. This would be the kind of party that people who would be attracted to a nonpartisan election system would want to be part of. This sort of change is already happening.

In Thurston County we’re holding a series of open public forums in the weeks before our county caucuses. The purpose of these forums is to engage people that aren’t part of the Democratic Party already, but who would be interested in getting more involved. We’re also considering using online forums to engage folks prior to the actual forums and to continue the conversation afterwards.

The ideas from the forums will be passed along to the caucuses in early March, which can vote to pass them along to the county convention.

Political participation has decreased regularly over time. Deeper participation like running for office and being involved in parties has decreased even more. What voters are telling the parties by passing I-872 is that they want to be involved in the process, but not by following parties.

We need to make a better effort to get people, who otherwise vote and engage politically, back involved in the parties. The onus is on us to become more open and offer more ways to engage.

Beat back Eyman, reform municipal funding

Why Tim Eyman has been able to run roughshod over Washington politics was that people have an inherent distrust in government. They don’t see where there money goes, they don’t trust that its being spent well. Eyman’s I-900, he would say, would help reform government and give people more reason to trust that they taxes their contributing to the state coffers.

I-900, of course, doesn’t actually help local governments who since the first Eyman initiative and I-601 (which predated Eyman), have seen decreased funding and decreased services.

The City of Tacoma is looking to lead the charge in changing how local governments are funded:

In a special budget meeting last night, the Tacoma city council agreed to explore a singular remedy for its projected revenue shortfalls. The idea… would connect key city services to a new tax at levels explicitly determined by the voters…

The scheme is basically a monthly city property tax dedicated to police, fire and library services — the core of city government. Current B&O, utility and other taxes would be eliminated — including the city’s portion of the existing property tax. In Anderson’s initial outline, the tax would extend to all property holders other than houses of worship, which would include private schools and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charities, and others. A base level would be set by a city-wide vote, and any subsequent increase would also go to a referendum.

The plan, though, needs more than just inovation on the local level. The legislature needs to clear a path in state law to allow Tacoma to overhaul their system. Once the legislature acts, and they should, it woud allow other local governments to follow suit.

While I’m not totally wild about not exempting anyone except for “places of worship” under the plan, it does do one very important thing: create transparency. From the News Tribune:

Anderson’s rationale for the fee concept – which he acknowledges is radical – is intriguing.

It would, for the first time, tell citizens exactly what public safety and libraries are costing them, he contends. Under the existing system of taxation, most citizens have very little idea where their property taxes go, since the dollars are divvied up among the state, city, school district and county government, plus special taxing districts like the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma.

City taxpayers thus have little basis for judging whether they’re getting a reasonable value for their money. A specific amount for a specific service – such as police protection – would bring that into focus, allowing citizens to make informed judgments about how their monthly assessments are being spent.

Eyman and other anti-tax zealots succeed because citizens don’t trust government. More transparency in government is a good thing, creating more trust in government and creating a better case for better, more active, local government.

Newer posts »

© 2026 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑