Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: Washington Politics (Page 13 of 27)

Sandra Romero nominated by Thurston County Democrats

April 29, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Sandra Romero was nominated earlier tonight by a vote of 77 to 63. Its a sham and a shame, but its something we do now.

I got there late, but here are my notes from tonight. I’ll hopefully get some time tomorrow to distill my thoughts down. Ignore the typos please:

Turns out I wasn’t too late, walked in about 7:30 and John Cusick was still getting through the “why exactly we’re doing this again?”

Guy Hoyle Dobson made a valient effort. Weird, I usually disagree with anything Guy has to say, but he made the point of the weird difference between a nomination and an endorsment.

Another lady named Virginia, a PCO, made the point that the state party shouldn’t be telling us what to do. We made a resolution from the floor that we wouldn’t endorse before the primary during the convention and now it looks like we’re going the other way.

Commissioner district 1, Cathy Wolfe nominated by acclimation. I tried to vote no, but it went quicker than I expected.

A few minutes of clearing up everyone in District 2 had the right colored cards. That’s how we do credentials in Thurston County, you lift up a different colored card depending on whether you’re a PCO, member (and for tonight) where you live. Second district PCOs have blue cards, District 1, pink and PCOs, smaller green cards. So, to keep that straight, I have a pink and green card. The people seeing the real action tonight have blue (district 2) and green (PCOs).

One of the things we didn’t really talk about tonight is that someone else could have (theoretically speaking) stood up and stolen the nomination from Cathy, Sandra and John.

John Halvorson talks first. “Who’s ready to vote Democrat!?!?” Yeaaaah says everyone. Then he goes into a pretty basic schpeal:

He’s experienced, he’s been elected before, he’s lived here a long time. Almost every county official in this courthouse has endorsed me.

Sandra and I like each other today, we’ll like each other tomorrow and tomorrow we’ll still be Democrats.

Romero speaks second.

Legislative experience, working in the joint Transportation committee. We need more than roads, we need alternatives.

We need to make sure we don’t become everywhere else USA. This is why I support Sandra, she worked so hard with the livable Thurston Campaign. She isn’t just running on experience or who she knows, but rather what exactly she’s going to do.

Circle name and sign on the back. Not a secret ballot.

Ironically, Fred Finn got the real endorsement/nomination whatever of the Thurston County Democrats by getting campaign services.

Sandra wins the nomination. What was the vote?

I want to thank both candidates for putting up with this rushed and unanticipated thing we had to do tonight.

We voted not to report the vote.

What’s likely going to happen tonight (Thurston County Dems nominating mess/sham)

April 28, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Olympian, PolitickerWA, and Politics is a blood sport are all writing about this incredibly cynical mess.

Though PIABS says the Olympian does a good job explaining things, Brad Shannon actually trips up at a few places:

Halvorson and Romero both say they’ll abide by the results and do the best they can. And later, if both survive the primary to meet in the general election, both can seek the formal endorsement of the local party. If I understand this right, both could be endorsed.

Thurston County Democrats don’t endorse. Though we do nominate (for some reason) we don’t endorse anyone. We do offer campaign services, and often times (even in non-partisan races) we offer campaign services (which could mean money) to more than one candidate in the same race, but we don’t endorse.

He did get this part right:

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court let that primary become the law — while allowing for future challenges of the runoff primary system if political parties can show voters are confused or parties are damaged.

And that’s what this crazy nomination process is all about: preserving party standing to sue if they don’t like the results after the Aug. 19 primary.

We’re doing this tonight not for the sake of democracy, but to sue. We could have done the right thing, but we’re not.

So, what we’re going to end up doing is nominating either Halvorson or Romero. And that candidate will not actually gain much in the nomination. Probably, though, the public reaction to the nomination will damage the winner more than the loser.

I’ll be voting in the District 1 nominating election and will vote no (though we only have one choice) simply because I don’t like what’s going on.

King County board votes to study IRV

April 25, 2008 / / 0 Comments

IRV folks have been pushing for a charter amendment in King County for the past few months, similar to the path taken in Pierce County. The charter review commission moved to suggest the county study IRV instead.

Not really a win, but not an all out loss either. Looks like Pierce County is still the pioneer. This fall with the Top Two/IRV taste test will be interesting:

Via email:

Hi folks this is to let you know that last night we won a modest but significant victory on the road to opening up our voting system to more voices and choices through using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in King County. The King County Charter Review Commission, a group of citizens appointed every 10 years to recommend changes in the County’s Charter, voted 16-1 to ask the King County Council to form a citizens task force to investigate whether we should put an initiative in support of IRV for County Elections of the ballot in King County. The recommendation is for the citizens’s task force to be convened in January 2010 and to make a recommendation about the advisability of an IRV initiative by the end of the year.

Of course, we would have preferred something much stronger, we were urging the commission to recommend adoption of IRV right away due its many advantages, including ensuring the election of a true majority, encouraging greater voter turnout, reducing negative campaigning, allowing people to vote their hopes rather than their fears by eliminating the “spoiler” factor, and saving pubic dollars by combining the primary and general election into a single contest.

Still, the commissions’ vote was a significant victory for electoral reform, their initial recommendation had been to essentially do nothing- take no action of IRV and to simply wait and see what happens in Pierce County where IRV will be used for the first time this year after a successful pubic vote. Our public testimony affirmed the fact that IRV has been used successfully around the county and around the world for decades and demonstrated broad public support for a system that offers much greater choice. The fact that IRV had more support during the Comssion’s pubic hearings than any other issue by far was recognized in their discussion last night; clearly it was what turned the tide in favor of the commission voting to give IRV more specific consideration. About 30 people testified during the 4 public hearings, including a large number of young people, and dozens wrote letters as well. Thanks much to all of you who participated!

There is much more work to be done, including educating the members of the King County Council about the merits of IRV. We gained a lot of support and educated a lot of people during the public hearing process. Let’s savor this small but significant victory and keep our poitive momentum going to have an effective citizen’s advisory group that will recommend putting IRV on the ballot in King County.

Thanks
Joe Szwaja
Vice President Instant Runoff Voting of Washignton

What we should have done (sham nominating conventions)

April 24, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Instead of putting on sham nominating conventions across Washington State, we Dems should have done something different. Well, we shouldn’t have sued to overturn 872 in the first place.

But, we could have become more relevant on our own term type organizations, rather than forcing our way into relevancy. Rather than writing my point all over again, I’ll just quote myself:

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?

An Obama alternate delegate from Thurston County wrote this blistering attack on us (political party types) after going through the caucus process:

And, more to the point, I was constantly on the verge of asking why a party that self-styles itself “Democratic” completely fails to choose its nominee in a democratic manner. The caucus system itself is already designed to disenfranchise more people than necessary. [While I acknowledge the limitations of a traditional primary vote, it at least has the advantage of not turning away those with disabilities (the caucus I attended was decidedly wheelchair-unfriendly), those with jobs that require their presence on Saturday mornings, and those who are not particularly interested in sitting around for several hours to cast a vote.]

…

But that’s the wrong impulse. The right response, after learning more about how fucked up the political system in this country, is to want to limit as much as possible the amount of sway political parties have. I want the Thurston Democrats and Republicans to have as much political power as the Thurston County Economic Development Council or the League of Women Voters. In other words, take the political parties out of politics. Let the people decide with as few or as many filters as they want.

Limit as much as possible the amount of sway political parties have. Local parties with as much power as the EDC or League of Women Voters.

This isn’t death, we can live and thrive in a world like that.

That’s what is happening anyway (see this link again) and the lawsuits against the Top Two are the reaction of an entrenched political bureaucracy against changing times.

People already are engaging in politics in ways that are contrary to how political parties operate. If we want to be relevant, we should stop trying to force people into closed primaries and meet them where they’re at.

“Nominating conventions” are baloney, B.S., horse puckey

April 23, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Thurston County Dem chair John Cusick (a great guy I don’t envy right now), explaining to one particular PCO (who passed on the email) the difference between the need to “nominate” a candidate in a contested local Dem race and why that isn’t an “endorsement.”

In reaction to the Top Two primary, the state party is forcing local organizations into a sham process so they can set up a lawsuit:

With regard to the Thurston County Democrats, this simply reaffirms our long-standing policy with regard to endorsements: we do not do them before primary elections, but we may provide campaign services support.

This does not affect the “nominating convention” meetings we have scheduled for next Monday. While endorsements are an expression of further support, nominations propose someone as a candidate. As I have continued to state, our nomination of one candidate among two we support does not in any way diminish our support of both candidates. (emphasis mine)

We must provide the name of a nominee for each county partisan position to the Washington State Democrats in order to preserve the asserted legal right of Democrats to select their nominees. If we do not do so, the State Party Chair will simply select one for us. (emphasis mine)

The candidates involved have mutually agreed to do this quickly with minimal fanfare. The nomination is simply to preserve a legal right, it will not constitute an endorsement or any other elevated form of support.

My first thought is that we don’t nominate anyone. If the state party is forcing us to make a meaningless nomination, then let them make the meaningless nomination.

These nominating conventions are a sham process to put forward an “official” Dem candidate for the ballot so we can sue to overturn Top Two after the election when that nomination was recognized.

Lou Guzzo goes a bit too commie with Sonics

April 21, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Lou Guzzo:

They are joined by two other Democrats, Senators Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray, who are also very critical of the Sonics “robbery” but are doing nothing about the N.B.A. owners’ action. If they were really concerned, they would immediately introduce legislation in Congress to take away the owners’ sports dictatorships and order that all pro-sports franchises should belong to the cities and their sports fans, whose dollars at the turnstiles make pro sports possible.

And…

With that kind of a law, only the voters and sports fans of cities could determine whether a basketball, football, baseball, hockey, or any other franchise could leave town. Every major city in the U.S. should have the right to own franchises in all pro sports and to force them to leave if they wished.

Under such a law, the cities would not own nor operate the teams. That would be done by eligible owners or organizations, and the city governments should have no say in the day-to-day operations of the teams. Doesn’t that make a lot more sense than the present stupid tugs of war the pro leagues now condone?

What would be much easier and much less radical proposal would be to simply allow non-profit or fan-owned teams. There is only one top level professional team in the United States that could be considered “fan owned.”

Here’s a quick rundown of what’s wrong with our current organization of pro-sports:

First, overturn the major leagues’ prohibition on fan ownership. This will likely require Congressional action. Representative Earl Blumenauer’s (D-Oregon) Give Fans a Chance Act (HR 590) would accomplish this goal. The bill would forbid any of the professional leagues from prohibiting community ownership, and would withdraw the leagues’ antitrust privileges if they did so. It also requires teams to give their communities 180 days notice of proposed relocation, during which time the community can put together an offer to retain the franchise. Lastly, it requires that leagues consider factors such as fan loyalty and whether the community is opposed to the move before approving relocation.

So, an effort like Share Liverpool or A.F.C. Wimbledon could ever happen.

Democratic Party Nominating Conventions in Thurston County

April 21, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Questions and Answers from Thurston County Dems on our nominating conventions (via email):

Why Are We Doing This?

In a nutshell, because we have been directed to do so by the Washington State Democrats (WSD). Following the recent US Supreme Court decision on the “top two” primary, the WSD legal team determined that all Democratic county party organizations in Washington State need to consistently identify a nominee for all partisan county positions in order for the WSD to maintain its asserted rights for Democrats to select their nominees.

In Commissioner District 1, this is unlikely to pose any particular difficulty, since we are only aware of one candidate running as a Democrat, incumbent Commissioner Cathy Wolfe. However, in Commissioner District 2, we have two candidates running as Democrats, Jon Halvorson and Sandra Romero. Since we support them both, we appealed to the WSD to be allowed to nominate two candidates in cases where we have two known qualified Democrats running for one position. We lost our appeal and are now simply complying with the legal requirements.

We believe it is best for all Democrats if this is done quickly and without fanfare. To continue to argue and debate this amongst ourselves will do nothing more than divide us and create unnecessary and unhelpful media attention.

Who Decided to Do This?

Since the US Supreme Court decision March 18, there have been many discussions and meetings among local parties and the WSD to determine what to do. Our TCD Executive Committee met to determine our best course of action following the final decision of the WSD Executive Committee April 3 that instructed all local parties with contested Democratic primary races to conduct nominating conventions prior to May 23.

After lengthy discussion and consideration of various alternatives, we decided the best course of action is to convene the PCOs in District 1 and select a nominee. Were we to fail to do so, Mr. Pelz would simply pick one for us.

What Will Be the Effect of this Nomination?

Mr. Pelz will submit the names of the nominees throughout the state to Secretary of State Reed indicating that they are the candidates who are approved Democrats for the primary ballot. We already know that Secretary Reed will not identify them as such on the ballot. The WSD will then determine whether and when to file for injunctive relief based upon the denial of its rights of association (i.e., ability to determine who represents its party). I suspect this would not occur until after the results of the general election, at earliest, and that their legal team will be seeking cases where the candidate elected was clearly not a Democrat, yet the voters thought s/he was.

In our case, the nomination will have little effect, if any.

Is this an endorsement?

No, per long-standing TCD policy, the TCD does not endorse candidates prior to primaries.

What Will We Do on the 28th?

You will each receive a ballot, the value of which is weighted by the number of precinct delegates you were eligible to elect at your precinct caucus. (This is per State Party rules with the intent to represent the varying numbers of Democratic voters in different precincts. I have attached a table of those weights.)

We only know of one Democratic candidate (Cathy Wolfe). If there are not others, Cathy may be nominated by acclimation.

If candidate speeches are necessary, they will be limited 5 minutes maximum for each candidate.

You will mark your ballot indicating one choice. (Per State Party rules, there is no vote splitting — each ballot shall be cast for one candidate only.) You will sign the back of your ballot. The ballots will be retained for 30 days in case of questions or need for review.

There will be no secondary speeches and no questions from the audience.

The votes will be tallied by a committee made up of members from other Commissioner Districts. The candidate who receives the most weighted votes, will be declared nominated and his or her name will be submitted to Mr. Pelz within 24 hours.

Will There Be Any Other Nominations on the 28th?

We will conduct a nomination for Commissioner District 2.

Legislative District 22 may also conduct nominations at a separate meeting the same night.

Again, it’s best to complete this as quickly and positively as possible, with minimal fanfare. Party unity is more important than whoever’s name ends up being forwarded as our nominee.

A couple of things I take from this:

1. There is a difference of opinion between the state and local organization (possibly more organizations? I’m sort of out of the loop lately) on the necessity and wisdom of these conventions.

2. At least in Thurston County, this is a foot dragging sort of thing and is only being done to be ok by the rules of the state party so the state organization can end up suing the state in December when the election violates the party’s right to assembly.

Basically: look we held these nominating conventions (which aren’t endorsements, btw in Thurston County) and the state still didn’t tell anyone that we nominated these guys. Talk about a violation of assembly!

Argument for Top Two died today

April 7, 2008 / / 0 Comments

If we had the Top Two back in 1996, Ellen Craswell would not have made the general election and only a few people would be writing about her today.

1996 September primary results:

Gary Locke D 287762 23.65%
Norman Rice D 212888 17.50%
Ellen Craswell R 185680 15.26%
Dale Foreman R 162615 13.37%
Jay Inslee D 118571 9.75%
Norm Maleng R 109088 8.97%
Jim Waldo R 63854 5.25%
Pam Roach R 29533 2.43%
Nona Brazier R 21237 1.75%
Brian Zetlen D 6152 0.51%
Warren E. Hanson R 4886 0.40%
Bob Tharp R 4825 0.40%
Jeff Powers SWP 3742 0.31%
Mohammad H. Said D 3007 0.25%
Max Englerius D 2837 0.23%

Is the Washington primary law unconstitutional?

March 26, 2008 / / 0 Comments

Michigan’s law was struck down because voter lists would only be distributed to the parties, not to anyone who wants them.

Read Washington’s law:

For a political party that requires a specific voter declaration under this section, the secretary of state shall prescribe rules for providing, to the state and county committees of that political party, a copy of the declarations or a list of the voters who participated in the presidential nominating process of that party.

Michigan’s law:

(3) The secretary of state shall develop a procedure for city and township clerks to use when keeping a separate record at a presidential primary that contains the printed name, address, and qualified voter file number of each elector and the participating political party ballot selected by that elector at the presidential primary.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the information acquired or in the possession of a public body indicating which participating political party ballot an elector selected at a presidential primary is confidential, exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be disclosed to any person for any reason.

(5) To ensure compliance with the state and national political party rules of each participating political party and this section, the records described in subsection (3) shall be provided to the chairperson of each participating political party as set forth in subsection (6).

(6) Within 71 days after the presidential primary, the secretary of state shall provide to the chairperson of each participating political party a file of the records for each participating political party described under subsection (3). The secretary of state shall set a schedule for county, city, and township clerks to submit data or documents required under subsection (3). The secretary of state and county, city, and township clerks shall destroy the information indicating which participating political party ballot each elector selected at the presidential primary as recorded in subsection (3) immediately after the expiration of the 22-month federal election records retention period.

Anyone? Citizen Steve, what say you?

Update: Ballot Access blog has their say. And, as usual, its a good one.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑