The headline seems to make little sense, but I really liked the piece written by a New American fellow on California politics.
Category: Washington Politics (Page 26 of 27)
I took Chad Lupkes’ great maps of the Washington State legislative districts and made them into a movie.
While we wait on the 9th Circuit Court to announce a ruling on the Top Two primary, we can imagine the eventual response by the Grange if they end up upholding the lower court decision baring the Top Two system.
I think the next logical step for the Grange, while they’ve never said this, is to file another initiative making every statewide elected office and legislative seat non-partisan. While is would no have any impact on the partisan affiliation of any candidate, it would make partisan primaries a moot point.
The idea of non-partisan legislative seats may get an interesting test this November when Pierce County votes on making their county council non-partisan. While, the county executive will stay a partisan official under this proposal, all other county offices, including all other county wide electeds, will shed their partisan lables, at least on the ballot.
How Pierce County votes on this issue will tell us a lot about how Washington could see it in a couple of years. Pierce is one of the large urban Puget Sound counties that typically sway statewide elections and has swung in recent years.
It is’nt a wide ranging bill as has been passed in Maine or as the Republicans are trying to get rid of in Arizona, but HB 6221 passed the Senate yesterday, which would allow local governments to fund election campaigns. This bill is essentially recreates the rules regarding public financing that were in place prior to the election system reforms in 1993.
As in Arizona, Republicans in Washington aren’t exactly supporting this bill either:
Conservative Republicans like Sen. Don Benton of Vancouver blasted the
bill as an unconstitutional, illegal and even unethical misuse of
public money.…“The argument against
is, you can’t take taxpayer money and give it to candidates,” Benton
said. “Legally and ethically, you can’t do it. … It sets up a means for
local governments to dole out taxpayer dollars to their favorite
candidates. It’s just plain wrong.”
I’m not sure how “favorite” would translate into “anyone that would want to follow the rules,” but also as in Arizona, it has been Republicans that have had a hard time following the new money rules. Go figure.
A wider version of this system, where the state offers financing for legislative candidats that can display wide support (through a certain number of small donations) opens up the politcal process to folks that could never have afforded or had the rich friends to get into elective politics. In the same way that Dan Swecker’s full time legislature would have allowed a wider range of people to serve, public financing allows a wide range of people to run in the first place.
The Grange doesn’t seem to be making friends with the 9th Circuit:
“My football team preference is the Seahawks,” Ahearne said. “No one is
going to take that to mean I’m a member of the Seahawks.”
“I don’t think that’s a good analogy,” Judge Raymond Fisher responded.
It still looks like if the grange is going to make another go at this, it will be with a non-partisan ballot initiative.
As much as I hate to praise any Republican, Dan Swecker’s HB 6659 is worthy of half-praise. It helps solve a problem that is inherent with our legislature: only people who can afford to serve ever actually do.
The Washington leg is known as a hybrid: representatives and senators are paid salaries, instead of being totally unpaid or just paid a stipend, but they aren’t considered full time. Not only do you need a second job to serve, but you need a second job that allows you to take off for a few months every year, and a few days every so often for committee work.
There is no wonder why there are more than a few legislators who already work “political jobs” (see Swecker’s district mate Richard Debolt). A full time legislature will allow more “regular folks” (for lack of a better term) to serve.
That said, full-time legislators is only half the battle. The other half would be full public funding of legislative elections, as in Maine:
In two states, Arizona and Maine, campaign finance reform is opening the election process to newcomers and helping to break the lock wealthy special interests have on the legislative process. In both states, candidates for state offices win public financing on condition that they raise and spend no private money (including their own) and abide by stringent spending limits. To qualify, these “Clean Elections” candidates have to raise a large number of $5 contributions from voters in their district (the opposite of the system in most states, where candidates raise a small number of large contributions from a tiny, wealthy elite). Candidates who choose to run clean get public funds, and, if they are outspent by a privately financed opponent, additional matching funds are available.
In 2000, both states had maiden runs of Clean Elections, with promising results. A third of Maine’s legislators were elected running “clean,” as were about one-fifth of Arizona’s legislators.
UPDATE: Watch it here. I didn’t realize until just now, but Thurston County own’s Sam Garst moderated the forum. And, he did a good job.
The Unity Coalition forum will be online at TVW and on the tv (via email):
Yesterday, the caucuses of the Washington State Democrats gathered the candidates for State Party Chair – Jean Brooks, Bill Harrington, Mark Hintz, Dwight Pelz and Laura Ruderman – for the Unity Coalition forum. The candidates answered questions posed by each caucus and described their vision for the Party.
TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network, taped the forum. They will be broadcasting the forum on Wednesday at 10 pm and Saturday at 7 pm. After Wednesday, you can also watch the forum on the Internet by going to TVW’s Web site, http://www.tvw.org.
Thank you for the caucuses of the Washington State Democrats for organizing this forum!
Last year when Paul Berendt was running successfully for an umpteenth terms as state chair, there wasn’t much talk about it online. Not that there wasn’t anyone running against Paul, he had healthy competition. But there was a sense that given the lawsuit fight over the governor’s race, it would be a bad idea to change horses in mid-stream, to borrow a bad cliche.
This year has been different, which is a really good thing. Democrats across Washington have used Paul’s retirement as an opportunity to talk about not only who they want to see guiding the party, but where they want the party to go. I’ve been guilty myself of some personal axe-grinding on the topic of the party being almost totally absent in the building netroots arena. My concerns though, have been somewhat assuaged by the discussion going on right now in several places.
Washblog has been near the center of discussion, with former candidate for chair Greg Rodriguez posting several times on his candidacy and his withdrawl. While he pointed out that his taking his name out of the ring has nothing to do with blog comments, he has been active (along with several other active Dems) in public online forums. Interviews with Jean Brooks and Bill Harrington, also in the running for state chair, have been posted on DailyKos.
Having discussions in online and public places is good for the party and good for whoever ends up becoming chair next month. I feel more part of the process being able to discuss maturely in public who should lead us for the next few years. We are a more open party, more open to newcomers and folks that don’t feel empowered if we stay on this course and keep things out in the open.
David over at Horsesass.org has a good point about the next Washington State Dems chair that gets started with this:
..I finally got a chance to confront a top Dem communications staffer, and used the opportunity to plead with them to find some money to spend on radio ads and direct mail to combat the GOP misinformation campaign. The response? The staffer turned towards the surrounding throng and incredulously asked, “Is he telling me how to do my job?”
Yes I was. I’m a blogger. That’s what we do.
I’d change it up just a bit: I’m a citizen, that is what I do.
He continues:
What I want from the new chair is the understanding that the party’s success depends at least as much on communications as it does on money and lawyers, and that the media doesn’t quite work the same way it used to. I want a chair who embraces innovation, and who is able to see beyond the next election towards the media and political landscape of a decade from now. I want a chair who will support the efforts by the current communications staff as they explore new media ventures.
But mostly, I want a party chair who is willing to at least listen to bloggers like me tell him how to do his job, without incredulously dismissing us out of hand.
Basically, listen to us, we’re out here, we’re smart, we want to help. I would change the word blogger in David’s analysis to something more general. Something to reflect those folks that aren’t now involved in politics. But he’s going in the right direction. The next party chair needs to listen to people and give folks not already involved in the party open avenues to be engaged.
I’ve been reading, thinking about community a lot lately. Its not talked about much, but the decline in what Robert Putnam called “social capital” is one of the most damaging cultural trends in the United States. Basically, neighbors don’t trust each other, communities don’t have the connections that bridge gaps between rich and poor.
Now, Democrats are looking this is the eye:
Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has commissioned confidential polling and analysis that suggest candidates in 2006 and 2008 should frame their policies — and attacks on Republicans — around the context of community.
It seems to be the emerging message from a party that has been bereft of one.
…“When we work together, when rely on one another, when we care about one another, we remove the fear of sharing,” Vilsack said. “I believe the current administration and its polices is eroding the sense of community . This country’s two great things — the self-reliant individual supported by community — is what made the American dream … possible.”
…Equating the GOP agenda for Social Security, public-school vouchers and Medicare with “social Darwinism,” Obama said the key to the nation’s success is striking a balance between individual and collective responsibility .
“It has to do with individuals,” he said, “but it also has to do with community.”
It seems we already have a head start on talking to voters who retain a sense of community. After the election last year, a lot was made of the Republicans winning the “fastest growing communities.” While these place where indeed growing very fast and yes, did go for Bush, there wasn’t much discussion on whether it was because they were growing so fast they would probably end up voting for any Republican over any Democrat.
Eric at the Cascadia Scorecard points to a general relation between lack of social capital and voting for bush. But basically, fast growing and sprawling communities, because a good portion of the people living there just moved there, lack the community ties that older, more established communities have.
While we’re reaching people that already have ties to their community, we need to reach out to places where community is not so strong. We need to talk about filling the need.
(On a side note, I’ve felt for a few years a sense of unfulfilled promise after 9/11, that we didn’t do something as a nation that we should have. I’ve had a hard time putting my finger on it until I started reading about social capital, community, etc. We missed a chance to reinforce what a lot of people were feeling, that we really are all in this together. Not just winning “a war on terror,” but everything. George W. Bush squandered a chance to call on Americans to have a greater responsibility for their communities.)
Emmett O'Connell
@emmettoconnell@olympiatime.com
1,764 posts
22 followers