Dollars for Democrats - Contribute to Peter Goldmark, Darcy Burner, and Maria Cantwell Today

Click now on MajorityRulesBlog's ActBlue link to contribute to the Congressional campaigns of three Democrats that need our help. Today June 30th is the deadline for second quarter contributions from April through June, 2006. Campaigns must submit their reports by July 15.

This quarter's reports will be viewed very closely by the media, campaign consultants, pollsters, pundits, opponents, and others as an indication of the strength of a candidate's campaign. So if you've thought about giving a contribution, today is a good day to do so. And if you haven't thought about making a contribution, shame on you. Again click on ActBlue now.

ActBlue is the online clearinghouse for Democratic candidates. It is set up nationally and is proving to be a valuable addition to the ways candidates and their supporters can reach out to people on the internet.

The stakes in who controls Congress are critical. Without control of either the House or the Senate, our present totally one party governemnt will continue to run over the rights of average citizens in favor of the corporations and multimillionaires.

They will continue to add right wing conservatives tp the Federal Courts, and as if the present Republican Supreme Court lackies aren't bad enough, just think what it will be like if another Bush appointee reaches the Supreme Court.

A day ago they endorsed DeLay's partisan Republican power grab of Texas redistricting and you can expect more of that nowin other states. And don't forget in 2000 they were the ones that voted to put George Bush in office, not the voters of this country. They stopped the Florida recount. If the voter recount had been stopped in Washington it would have been Governor Rossi. The Republican Supreme Court system is for process only as long as they are winning.

So starting at the top. Here are my recommendations:

We need to keep Maria Cantwell as Washington's U.S. Senator

Next are the Democratic candidates for the 2 U.S. House seats currently held by Republicans:

Peter Goldmark - Washington's 5th Congressional District

Darcy Burner - Washington's 8th Congressional District

You can contribute to these candidates by going to the MajorityRulesBlog page at Act Blue.
Clicking on this link will also let you connect to the websites of each of the candidates if you want to check out their campaign's a little closer.

Republicans Fail to Protect God. Satan Removed Earmarked Exemption from Constitution

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday failed once again to save their omnipotent God from the potential ravages of a Satan tampered with U.S. Constitution. They proclaimed that the U.S. Constitution must have been tampered with while God was sleeping and that Satan had removed an earmarked exemption to protect "under God" from constitutional review, Republicans tried to undo the terrible deed. God sleeping meant that he was not able to really input his ultimate wisdom upon those who wrote the U.S. Constitution, so Republicans yesterday tried in vain to make the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance sacrosanct and beyond judicial scrutiny as to its constitutionality in the future.

Never mind that the Constitution is several hundred years old and that the phrase "under God" was added in 1954. But God is prescient also so he should have forseen this happening.

Because, heaven forbid, if this nation "under God" allowed the judicial system set up "under God" to do its will, the courts just might find the words "under God" conflicted with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the Republicans tried passing legislation exempting the words "under God" from being able to be reviewed by the Federal Courts. They failed to get the legislation out of committee.

In a way its very similar to the recent Republican effort saying Congress would not set a date to get out of Iraq. Because then they might be held accountable for failing to get us out of Iraq. Because Republicans control Congress and the Presidency and the US Supreme Court is currently a partisan conservative Republican Court, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want. But they don't want to be caught making any promises they can't keep.

One has to wonder why God who is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent now needs Republican Senators to protect his holiness. Won't the Nation still be "under God", even if we don't say it in the Pledge of Allegiance? Won't God still be in people's hearts and guide their actions? Won't Congress still act based on God's wisdom and will and his commandments?

And what is this thing about desecrating the flag? Does a piece of cloth really represent our nation or do the people and their actions represent our nation? Seems to me this piece of cloth is really some kind of false idol by indications of all the attention the Republicans give it these days. They are using this piece of cloth to try to rally conservative voters. Wouldn't they be more successful if they really did a compassionate act, like raised the minimum wage or helped really rebuild New Orleans?

Republicans under Chief Priest and Holy Intrepreter of the Conservative Church of America, Karl Rove, are desperately trying to rally the right wing ideologues to save America from heathen Democrats. It's a real threat.

But if the Republicans really want to show God that they are saved and have seen the light, then maybe they should spend their time and the taxpayers money dealing with some real issues instead of doing the bidding of corporate America and the oil companies.

Like why don't we have car fuel efficiency standards that would really reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Why are we not engaging in a serious effort for energy independence?

Why can't we raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour which it has been for the last 10 years? Congress raised their own salary $30,000 during the same time?

Why are thousands of mobile homes taxpayers paid for sitting unused while people are still homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina?

Why have billions been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction without getting results?

Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we has a C.C.C. It was the Civilian Conservation Corps. It employed the unemployed during the Depression when the free reign American economic system broke down. Government and its citizens went to work rebuilding and building new roads and bridges and parks to benefit our country.

Today the Republicans have instituted a new C.C.C. It is called the Congressional Corporate Cronyism program. Under this new C.C.C. the Republicans have decided to give large tax breaks to wealthy multi-millionaires and corporations while passing token tax cuts for the rest of us taxpayers.

Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour. It's been the same for the last 10 years. Meanwhile Republicans in Congress have raised their own salary by $30,000 per year.

Republicans in Congress dole out large contracts to non-governmental entities to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions are spent with little to show. Republicans in Congress refuse to investigate.

Likewise millions are spent in contracts without government supervision to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina with much being wasted. Government entities like the Army Corps of Engineers are bypassed because Republicans believe in private enterprise.

It's almost like a conspiracy by the Republicans to carry out their oft stated purpose of reducing the Federal Government. We bomb the hell out of Iraq with an Awe and Shock campaign, destroying their infrastructure. Remember how at the time the rationale was that Iraq oil would pay for reconstruction. Never happened.

Instead billions in tax dollars from hard working Americans flow into the hands of private contractors that the Republicans favor in promoting free enterprise. Domestic programs are cut, reducing education, health care and other social service programs.

The end result. Both Osama Bin Laden and George Bush win. Osama Bin Laden gets us to spend billions and billions in a war on terror that drains our domestic economy. Bush having spent billions and billions in his personal war in Iraq forces Congress to both cut current expenditures for domestic programs and indebt future generations for war costs.

It is a rehash of the Reagan era military spending buildup to run the Russian economy into ruin. It worked then and it's now being flipped back on us. And Osama Bin Laden doesn't even have to expend billions. He just has to threaten us.

Americans are getting the results of reduced government under Bush. Corporations, oil companies and multimillionaires get tax breaks, while students and parents pay more to go to college, taxpayers pay the bills for higher medical costs and programs to help the poor decrease.

Instead of a compassionate government under God we have a mean spirited Republican Government hell bent on promoting increased wealth for the wealthy and giving tax breaks for corporations and oil companies. The Republican free enterprise doctrine is rapidly taking place in America as Republicans are successfully implemented their attack plan of limiting government for most citizens while giving special protections to corporate America.

Why is that not surprising? Americans put an oilman in the White House, not an educator, or a social worker. The Bush Republicans have done a great job of hoodwinking America as to their goals and intentions.

Coming Next - "One Nation Under God"

As if flag burning was not enough, the Republicans next pledge to not deal with the economy, the Iraq War, health care or global warming. Instead, one of the next burning issues is the Pledge of Allegiance.

By the way, isn't it just a little odd, that once a flag is old and not in great shape, that the acceptable procedure of what to do with the flag is to burn it.

And for the record, both of Washington's U.S.Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, voted against amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning.

Anyway, keeping with the Republican priorities of dealing with the real issues facing Americans today, the Republican leadership on Tuesday said it plans to vote this summer on a same sex marriage amendment, abortion rights, Internet gambling, property rights and the Pledge of Allegiance.

In case you've forgotten, the pledge says:

" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The issue goes back to the words "under God" which ironically were not in the first Pledge of Allegiance. "Under God" was added in 1954. Republicans don't want the lower courts to have any judicial review of constitutional issues involved in using the words "under God"

Wikipedia has an interesting section on the Pledge of Allegiance, which for some odd reason states at the top "The neutrality of this article is disputed"

Maybe it's because of the odd history of the Pledge of Allegiance that's covered by the wikipedia article and by God, much of popular history is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It all depends on who's telling it. Anyway here's some of the wikipedia version:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It was seen by some Brightonians as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. Bellamy had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and African Americans. Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue.

...In 1940 the Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the Gobitases, who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. In the wake of this ruling, there was a rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that matters of religious conviction should be safeguarded from political control.

...On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge.Before World War II, the Pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart during the phrase "I pledge allegiance". The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase "to the Flag", and it remained outstretched during the rest of the pledge, with the palm facing upward, as if to lift the flag. An earlier version, the Bellamy salute, also ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards, but began with the right hand in a military salute, not over the heart. Both of these salutes differed from the Roman salute, where the palm was toward the ground. However, during the war the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the right hand over the heart.
On September 13, 1988, Sonny Montgomery became the first Congressman to lead the U.S. House in citing the Pledge of Allegiance as a permanent part of its daily and morning business operations [1].
On June 24, 1999 the Senate passed a resolution sponsored by Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire to recite the Pledge before each day's session.

There's a lengthy discussion of the Knights of Columbus starting the drive to add "under God" and how Eisenhower went to a church sermon where the words were discussed as aligning with Abraham Lincoln's usage in his speechs. I recommend reading the whole article but found the origin of the pledge of allegiance as a selling gambit much like lots of advertisements today to so very American. Sort of like signing the lyrics of a soap commercial before we use it, reinforcing subliminally our need to buy the same brand of soap next time.

And the whole issue of the flag salute - I wonder if the Republicans considered this as something we should revert to since it was a tradition at the time. Aren't Republicans for maintaining American traditions?

But especially curious are the dates that Congress first decided to start their sessions with a Pledge of Allegiance - 1988 and 1999. Seems Congress has been a little slow in something schools have been doing starting in 1892 - a full century before. Isn't it a little "Johnny Come Lately" of them to profess such concern about the actual wordage of the Pledge of Allegiance when they only officially started using the pledge so recently. Wikipedia also notes Congress first recognized the pledge as the official national one in 1945. Again it didn't seem like such a high priority to them for so long a time.

A good article by Steve Sacks of Yale Law School points out the difficulties Republicans will have in trying to stop lower courts reviewing the constitutional issues like the first amendment.

Peter Goldmark - Eastern Washington's Dark Horse Congressional Candidate

At the Democratic State Convention in Yakima, Washington several weeks ago, we had just heard 5th District Congressional candidate Peter Goldmark make an impassioned speech to the Convention. People afterward were heading off to lunch and I decided on a whim to ask people walking by his campaign table to show their support for Goldmark by making a contribution.

Well, people started stopping in mid stride and coming over to the Goldmark for Congress table, taking envelopes, writing checks and putting cash in envelopes. A friend of mine quietly whispered with his wife and they wrote out a $2000 check. A Goldmark volunteer at the table later said she thought she did great when she had someone hand her a $1000 check.

I do not know how much else went into the envelopes, but between writing checks, putting cash in envelopes and people taking envelopes for later contributions, we ran out of envelopes. A rush was made to get more envelopes.

There was very much a sense that rancher and former WSU regent Peter Goldmark is going to surprise a few people. Later I had a chance to talk more in depth with Peter Goldmark when he visited Seattle. We had coffee on Capitol Hill with another blogger, Mollie who blogs at Liberal Girl Next Door. Molly has written a separate post of her impressions of this meeting.

We started out by discussing how his campaign was going. Goldmark mentioned that he had a series of fundraisers planned and that things were picking up. He was putting together a campaign staff and things were coming together.

The end of June is the end of the next reporting period for contributions and expenses reported to the Federal Election Commission. Latest indications from a recent blog of DailyKos indicate Goldmark will probably have raised over $200,000 by the end of this reporting period. When I met with him he had around $150,000, so he has picked up another $50,000 in the last two weeks. That is a good start and I think things will continue to pick up as he moves along.

Goldmark in many ways did not come across as a politician when I talked with him. We talked in general about his campaign. He is a late starter in his campaign because he had second thoughts about running but he certainly does not convey any hestinancy now. Having run myself twice for Seattle City Council and twice coming in third in crowded primaries, I knew first hand the tremendous amount of time and energy that needs to be committed to put together a credible campaign. Goldmark has the drive and conviction that a winning candidate needs.

What stuck me about Goldmark was that he spoke with conviction about what he wanted to do and why he was running. His positions did not seem nuanced to be what he thought people wanted to hear but why he believed the way he did. He called himself an independent Democrat and he spoke as one. He did not evade questions but was direct and to the point

For example, he spoke of the need for an "intelligent exit" from Iraq, how the Iraq government needed to take control, stop squabbling and get their act together. "We need to take care of our country, they need to take care of theirs."

This sense of taking care of our own people was a constant theme in what he spoke about. He views that his primary task as a Congressman is to represent the people of the 5th Congressional District first and that national and international issues are secondary.

While he has conviction on national issues I was impressed with his well thought out positions and ideas on how he could better represent the voters and constituents of the 5th Congressional District that his opponent, who does not have much of a record to show for her two years in office.

He was clearly not comfortable with out of state Washington consultants trying to put a national spin on the race. He had been interviewing potential campaign consultants and felt uncomfortable with their attempts to portray this race in a national context.

Despite his concern, the race has national implications but Goldmark couched his position on Iraq, for example, on its impact on budget cuts for domestic programs that affect eastern Washington. "The war needs to be wound up. The troops need to be brought home. It is too expensive and costly'" he said.

This fits with what he said were his priorities:

• to cleanup Congress so it represented the people,
• to bring Federal deficit spending under control
• to support education and heathcare for the constituents of eastern Washington.

In addition Goldmark's agricultural background, both as a rancher and his public service efforts in promoting local agriculture by both growing and selling crops locally, gives him credibility to speak out and act in this important area. This included his push for sustainable agriculture and energy independence.

He spoke of the opportunity for farmers in eastern Washington "to grow national security crops. Agriculture is part of the solution. Grow it locally, process it locally and use it locally" He noted that there is currently a world surplus of wheat that the Federal Government is subsidizing. Wheat prices are the same as in the 70's. Farmers are eager for other ways to keep farming and make a profit.

Goldmark is a strong and viable candidate who would do a good job of representing the voters of eastern Washington. He is a local person who knows local issues. He is a respected rancher who for 30 years has lived the rancher's life in rural Okanogan County and knows agricultural issues. He has served as a Regent at Washington State University for 8 years and is well versed in educational issues. He received a PhD in Molecular Biology and understands science - something that would be an asset to Congress in dealing with scientific issues.

You can help send Peter Goldmark to Congress by supporting him. His website is at Goldmark for Congress. Click here to contribute to his campaign.

933 Questions left Unanswered!

It doesn't pay to wait around. The broad based coalition of Washington civic organizations opposing Initiative 933 wisely knows that. They are not just waiting around for the Farm Bureau and the out of state Americans for Limited Government to turn in signatures for Initiative 933 unopposed.

Full page ads were placed yesterday in the Seattle Times, Seattle PI, Everett Herald, The Olympian, The Columbian in Vancouver and the Spokesman-Review in Spokane urging voters not to sign the initiative. I-933 needs to collect about 270,000 signatures by July 7, 2006 to make it onto the November ballot. (Note: 224,880 valid signatures needed)

The No on 933 campaign has also put up a new website. You can go there to volunteer and also pledge to vote no.

Initiative 933 is patterned after Measure 37 in Oregon. As the American Planning Association notes:

In 2004, voters in Oregon approved a sweeping regulatory takings ballot initiative known as Measure 37. The measure undoes a wide swath of legal and legislative precedent by allowing individual landowners to claim compensation from the local community for any decrease in property value due to planning, environmental or other government safeguards.

As expected, radical property rights organizations have seized on the passage of Measure 37 to promote similar ballot measure in other states. These same advocates are also attempting to tap into public sentiment on eminent domain. Many of the Measure 37 "clones" are being quietly folded into ballot measures ostensibly aimed at eminent domain.
Regulatory takings initiatives threaten a wide array of planning, environmental, historic preservation, and land conservation measures.

Initiative 933 would gut years of hard fought and won protections in Washington against unmanaged growth. It would gut decades of citizen involvement in creating reasonable zoning to protect homeowners and businesses from inappropriate and ill planned unregulated development. I-933 would force cities and counties to make the choice between paying developers billions or allowing urnregulated development to take place.

As the No on 933 campaign says "I-933 creates a "pay or waive" system that will force taxpayers to pay billions of dollars to stop irresponsible development or exempt certain people from the law. I-933 is a poorly written law that will place additional unfair burdens on Washington taxpayers for years to come. "

I-933 is special interest legislation being bought and paid for by development interests and huge amounts of out of state money. The out of state right wing activist group, Americans for Limited Government, has contributed $200,000 to help place I-933 on the ballot.

In Washington State the major supporter and sponsor of Initiative 933 is the Washington State Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau represents large corporate farming interests in Washington State.

Robert F Kennedy Jr. - Lawsuit Next Step!

Robert F Kennedy Jr. in an interview in PR Week today said he would soon "be announcing lawsuits against some of the individuals and companies involved." in the 2004 Ohio election.

Two weeks ago in Rolling Stone, Kennedy asserted that "the Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."

Who are some of the possible people that could be sued? In the interview today Kennedy said that "The mastermind behind the efforts in Ohio was Kenneth Blackwell, along with …[Toledo elections official] Bernadette Noe. But on a national level, it's [Republican National Committee chairman] Kenneth Mehlman and Karl Rove.."

When PR Weekly responded that the election was long over Kennedy responded that "There's another election soon ... the same people are up to the same shenanigans ."

Well Kennedy is to be again commended. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to realize that if the Republicans got away with it twice before, well why wouldn't they do the same practices again this year. The question is - where's the rest of the Democrats?

What also still is lacking is that very little of the mainstream media covered Kennedy article. While its not new because as he notes it been out there before, what is new is the pulling together in one place a condensed version of how the Republicans did it. And what deserves attention is that the Republicans have no intention to ever investigate this. But where is the "independent" media? Maybe it sold out too.

Bloggers are able to speak out and that is refreshing. They have fewer limits on their freedom of questioning and will increase in influence as the rest of the media drifts away from public credibility.

I think where litigation is needed, is going to court to review election plans like in Ohio now before the election to insure that adequate voting machines are available and that procedures are fair and uniform procedures regarding voter registration and provisional ballots are in place.

Kerry's proposal of same day voter registration makes sense so voters not on the rolls on election day can still cast a provisional ballot without being turned away. And vote by mail also would eliminate some of the suppression efforts.

What is amazing here is that Bush and his cronies are self righteously promoting voting and representative democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq while subverting the same process at home.

And Americans seem not to be outraged. It's time to wake up. America is only as good as we make it. Without fair elections those elected have no legitimacy.

Democrat Darcy Burner's Congressional Bid Highlighted in Today's New York Times.

Darcy Burner, who is running to replace a first term Republican in Congress, today was highlighted as part of a front page story in the NY Times. The story noted that her race was one of 12 or so races critical to Democrats this year.

Democratic hopes of retaking the House, party strategists say, could hinge on places like Bellevue, a city of 107,000 just across Lake Washington from Seattle. Here, a fast-growing Asian population and an influx of empty-nesters and singles living in new residential complexes have helped to make this the kind of district that, while continuing to send a Republican to Congress, has turned increasingly Democratic.

While several other races were discussed, only Darcy Burner and her opponent incumbent first term Congressman Dave Reichert had their pictures in the paper. This race is in the news right now because today George Bush is taking time out of "his busy schedule working for the people" to go to a private fundraiser in Medina, a rich enclave near Bellevue, Washington. It is not an official Presidential function of the President to enrich members of his own party, so I assume that he is paying his own plane fare and for any extra security.

Misleading information has been placed in the media indicating that the President's visit was only going to cost Medina an extra $1000. The reason was because of an interlocal agreement that brought other police in from other areas for events like this. The problem with such partial reporting is that the other policemen are still going to have to be paid. I'm sure they're not using sick time or vacation time to do this extra work. So the taxpayers in the region will pay for what is a private partisan fundraiser for Republican Dave Reichert, since it has been written that Bush will only be here for 4 to 6 hours and will make no public appearances.

The article in the New York Times was written by Tim Eagan, who is the husband of Joni Balter who is on the editorial board of the Seattle Times. That is why the dateline for the article is Bellevue, Washington.

Titled "o6 Race Focuses on the Suburbs, Inner and Outer", the article discusses the changing dynamics of the surburbs and exurbs.Of 10 suburban races that Eagan compares, Dave Reichert's margin of victory in 2004 was the second smallest, only 5%. Kerry won the district with 51% of the vote.

Darcy Burner is running a strong race and has been a favorite among local bloggers in Washington state. She has also been on DailyKos, a national blog and was a featured story yesterday. She wrote a post entitled , "Karl Rove is sending Bush to WA 8 to fight me"

Burner has also issued a challenge to her supporters to raise $75,000 in 10 days from the grassroots to oppose Bush's help for Reichert. In the first day she raised almost $22,000. You can go to Burner's website to contribute online.

Was the Judge who Threw Out Initiative-297 Really Unbiased?

US District Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima yesterday threw out I-297 . I-297 was passed by Washington voters in 2004 to require that current radioactive and toxic waste at Hanford be cleanup before new waste is brought in.

But is there more to the story than just the ruling on the law? Just what is the background of Judge Alan Angus McDonald - a Reagan appointee to the Federal District Court in Yakima.

The Seattle Times in a March 12, 2003 article reported that McDonald withdraw from a 13 year old lawsuit regarding downwind radiation from Hanford because of a conflict of interest. The reason was , "Old McDonald had a farm" I kid you not.

According to the Seattle Times:

In October 1999, McDonald and his partners in Chiawana Orchards bought land in Ringold, Franklin County, across the Columbia River from Hanford.

In May 2001, McDonald and his partners applied to Northwest Farm Credit Services in Pasco for a $12 million line of credit, using the land as collateral and signing statements that the orchard was free of radiation contamination.

To make such a statement "requires a core conviction by Judge McDonald that no long-lasting contamination of the properties will ever be proved," Seattle attorney Tom Foulds wrote late last year in his motion to recuse.

"By definition, this is a prejudgment concerning one of the critical issues in the case." Judicial conduct codes call for judges to recuse themselves from cases if they could reasonably be perceived by the public to be lacking in impartiality or if they have a direct financial interest in a case.

Likewise in this case one could argue that if McDonald supported the state's position it would be some type of acknowledgement, that leaks through groudwater or the air of radioactive waste was a potential problem. By defering to the Federal Government, saying they have jurisdiction over radioactive waste at Hanford, it by default accepts the Federal Government's position that they have everything under control and that it is OK to bring more radioactive waste into Washington state before they clean up the current toxic and radioactive leaks.

Hanford, which is in the Tri-Cities area of eastern Washington State was the site where plutonium was made for the bomb that was used on Nagasaki, Japan at the end of WWII. At that time radioactive waste was dumped in unlined trenches in the desert land and little effort was made to control radioactive emissions from the smokestacks.

Articles printed in scientific journals noted the presence of increased amounts of radioactive materials traveling down the Columbia River and showing up at the mouth of the Columbia River. Weapons grade Plutonium was made for many years at Hanford.

The High Country News on 2/16/2004 in an article on jurisdiction shopping for anti-environmental judges, in addition noted the following about cases handled by Judge Alan Angus McDonald:

1991 — when a worker at the federal Hanford nuclear-weapons site complained he was harassed for raising safety concerns, McDonald ruled that federal law doesn’t protect whistle-blowers at federal nuclear sites
1993 — in a massive case in which thousands of downwind residents exposed to radioactive releases from Hanford sued Hanford contractors, ruled the contractors did not have to pay for medical tests (appeals court disagreed) 1994 — ordered that a scientific review finding flaws in the government’s assessment of Hanford’s downwind radioactivity should not be available to the public (another judge disagreed and made the criticism public, nine years later)
1996 — ruled that uranium tailings are not covered by the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations (appeals court agreed)
1998 and 1999 — in two sweeping rulings, dismissed most of the health-related claims of about 5,500Hanford downwinders against Hanford contractors, and rejected 17 scientific experts the downwinders wanted to testify (appeals court reinstated all the claims and the experts in 2002)
2000 — reporter Karen Dorn Steele of the Spokesman-Review revealed that for years, Judge McDonald had been passing racist notes (including insults to "greasers" and blacks) back and forth with his courtroom deputy while court was in session; fellow judges in the judicial council of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded McDonald for conduct that "could reasonably be interpreted as reflecting bias"

Justice Alan McDonald was first appointed to the Federal Court by President Ronald Reagan.

Washington State Initiative 297 Overturned - Here Comes the Nuclear Waste Again!

Yesterday the US District Court completely threw out the Hanford nuclear waste cleanup initiative - Initiative 297 in its entirety. Voters passed Initiative 297 in November 2004 by the largest margin ever of Washington voters, according to the Seattle PI. I-297 passed by a vote of 1,812,581 votes to 810,795 votes, or 69.09% yes to 30.91% no .

Initiative 297 was passed by Washington State voters to prohibit the Federal Government from shipping more nuclear waste to Hanford until it cleaned up the present contamination there according to existing Federal and state environmental cleanup standards.

What is disturbing about this case of judicial activism if I ever saw one is that US District Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima threw out the whole initiative. As noted in the Settle PI, "Last July, Washington's Supreme Court ruled that parts of the initiative, sponsored by Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest, could stand even if a federal judge finds other parts are unconstitutional. McDonald, however, struck it down in its entirety."

The result is that the Federal Court is saying that states have no rights in determining the future health and safety of their citizens. It is saying that states can not put any demands on the Federal Government, even if the Federal Government's actions put them at severe risk.

As a reminder of what citizens voted for , here is the ballot summary of I-297:

"This measure would establish additional requirements for regulating "mixed waste"(radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous substances) sites, such as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The measure would set standards for cleanup and granting permits, would prohibit waste disposal in unlined soil trenches, and require cleanup of tank leaks. Permits would not allow adding more wastes to facilities until existing contamination was cleaned up. Additional public participation would be provided and enforcement through citizen lawsuits would be authorized."

This is pretty radical, right - the state saying that nuclear waste disposal can not be permitted in unlined soil trenches and that leaks of radioactive and toxic material must be cleaned up. And how about saying before you can bring more wastes into the state you must cleanup existing waste, pretty radical.

But Judge McDonald threw everything out - even though Hanford is listed as the US's most contaminated nuclear waste site and a radioactive plume of waste is heading towards the Columbia River!

By the way Judge Alan McDonald was appointed by Ronald Reagan to the US District Court.

Secretary of State's website - Initiative 297 text
Eric Pryne in Seattle Times "Federal Judge strikes down Hanford nuclear waste initiative."
Shannon Dininny in Seattle PI Judge strikes down voters' ban on Hanford waste shipments.

Don't Think the Republicans Won't Try to Steal a Few Congressional Races this November

Is this the part where Bush tells the media "I am not a thief."? Because the smell is creeping up and up and getting just a little rank. Unfortunately, you can't unblock a plugged up sewage pipe without running the router down it to clear the blockage. And that's more and more what its looking like Americans need to do. It's time to call in the plumber.

Do we need to be concerned here in Washington state? Well I say we need to be concerned everywhere. We need to be vigilant. And we should expect the worst. It's when you don't expect it that it catches you by surprise.

Today Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times a column about "Those Pesky Voters" that picks up on that upstart Robert F Kennedy Jr who just couldn't let bygones be bygones. A week ago Kennedy wrote a lengthy article in Rolling Stone Magazine entitled "Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House." Kennedy heavily documented efforts by the Republican Party in Ohio to throw the election to Bush.

Bob Herbert in the NY Times asserts that

"...Mr. Kennedy, in his long, heavily footnoted article ("Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"), leaves no doubt that the democratic process was trampled and left for dead in the Buckeye State. Mr. Kerry almost certainly would have won Ohio if all of his votes had been counted, and if all of the eligible voters who tried to vote for him had been allowed to cast their ballots."

Kennedy is one of those who just won't let what happened in Ohio in 2004 be gone. You've got to admire the guy because most folks have let Ohio go. You see we just don't want to believe that something stinks. We've been taught since grade school that the integrity of our voting system is something that makes America so special and great.

The story we are told as we are growing up, and learning the pledge of allegiance and about Abraham Linciln and George (I can not tell a lie) Washington and other patriotic things, is that in America we play fair. We don't cheat. We are the shining example to the rest of the world of what democracy is and where free open fair elections occur. We have fought wars and people have died defending freedom and democracy. We are the shining beacon for people around the world, for citizens freely being able to vote to determine their future. Unfortunately it is just another one of those myths. Because like everything else, a free and fair election only works if everyone agrees to abide by the same rules. And it seems that the Republicans make up their own rules and ignore the ones they don't like.

With the Republicans and their corporate ruling class, its reverse Robin Hood. They rob from the poor to give to the rich. To continue to do that they need to stay in power. One way they do this is is becoming more obvious, they also rob our elections. The Florida Secretary of State in 2000 that helped to throw the national election to Bush was a Republican named Katherine Harris. Just by coincidence she also Co-Chaired the Florida Bush- Cheney campaign. The Ohio Secretary of State in 2004 was Ken Blanchard (currently running for Governor of Ohio) , who was also a Republican who just happened to be a Co-Chair of the Ohio re-election campaign for Bush-Cheney.

Isn't is just asking for trouble when a Secretary of State is part of a partisan campaign and also counting the votes. I think there is an ethical conflict here. It is now documented by the evidence that some Republicans definitely have a problem with separating their job from their partisan beliefs. The Office of Secretary of State should be representing all voters and maintaining the integrity of the election process. When they cross the line in trying to manipulate the voting process to support their partisan beliefs, like Blanchard and Harris did, it's time to kick these people out of office.

The Republicans right now control the Federal Government, the Presidency, the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and have appointed the majority to the US Supreme Court. They have no incentive to investigate either of these elections because it puts their majority status at risk.

Its going to take a groundswell of anger and action at the grassroots level to change things. It's going to take the independent bloggers and grassroots advocates and others to toss the bums out. Most of the mainstream media haven't responded because they are owned by a few corporations. Think Fox News is going to investigate. Think the right wing hatemongers on talk radio care? No, the mainstream media's job is to keep the people calm and support the ruling class.

Isn't it some joke that Bush is trying to convince us we're fighting for freedom and fair elections in Iraq while Republicans have done their best to rig the elections in our country. Would they really care what kind of elections they had in Iraq if they didn't also have oil that the big corporations want?

Eyman Took the Bait, Civil Liberties, Progressive Causes Win!

Frat Boy Tim Eyman has helped advance efforts to eliminate discrimination in Washington State. Failure to get enough signatures to put Referendum 65 on the November ballot allowed the anti- discrimination HB 2661 passed by the Washington State Legislature to go into effect today. People cannot lose their jobs or be refused housing, insurance or credit based on sexual orientation.

What is so interesting about what happened is that the effort to advance anti - discrimination legislation in this state is a perfect example of what aggressive progressive activism can do to change the political landscape.

Whereas in other states the right wing and evangelical churches have tried to push their agenda of exclusion and division by pushing legislation to ban gay marriage, including putting initiative campaigns on the ballot, here in Washington state the issue of discrimination became the battleground. Because Eyman is a lone wolf, he probably never consulted with others before filing his referendum.

Discrimination is a much harder issue for the right to win on because while one may oppose gay marriage, many more people feel it would be wrong for someone to lose their job or be unable to rent an apartment because they are gay. In essence the left defined what the campaign was about when HB 2661 was passed by the Legislature and as I said, Frat Boy Tim Eyman took the bait, and made this state's gay issue about discrimination, rather than marriage.

And because his 3 month effort failed to rally many troops and came up some 30,000 signatures short of what is really needed to qualify a measure to be put on the ballot, Eyman has advanced the cause of those that passed the anti-discrimination bill.

It is a major defeat for him and the churches that helped because the signature requirements for a referendum are only half of what it is to put an initiative on the ballot. With a 20% cushion for bad signatures an initiative needs to get close to 270,000 signatures. Eyman's self reported 105,000 signatures is just a little over a third of what would be needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

We should all give a big cheer for local Frat Boy Tim and his never ending efforts to make money while pushing his own conservative libertarian agenda with his two cronies from Spokane. What a team. Even the right wing churches complained that his fraternity of 3 botched the whole effort.

Of course a round of applause deserves to go to the Washington Won't Discriminate campaign for not waiting to see if enough signatures were obtained. They started organizing, building support and getting a strong campaign message out urging opposition to getting Referendum 65 on the ballot. Their efforts certainly helped make it more difficult for the right wing to collect signatures.

Eyman also was unable to raise very much money on this issue which meant he couldn't pay people for signatures. Probably this was a result of Washington's strong campaign finance disclosure laws. Many people probably did not want to have their names made public.

Once faced with asking people to volunteer, the lack of support to overturn the legislation became obvious. Most people, including most religious people, just don't believe in discrimination.

Eyman's Reputation More Bark than Bite!

Tim Eyman's failure to turn in signatures yesterday on Referendum 65 is not surprising. What is surprising is that many in the media view this as some anomaly. KIRO radio this morning called it one of his few failures. Likewise so did the public radio station in Tacoma yesterday.

However Andrew over at NPI Blog came much closer to the truth this morning when he headlined his post "Eyman's Failure the Latest in a Series of Losses" Neal Modie in his article in the PI this morning, "Eyman Fails to Deliver"has an inside headline of Eyman: public image out of date. He continued:

"The public perception of the attention-loving Eyman has been that of a successful promoter of tax-cutting or tax-limiting initiatives. But that perception is out of date.

With the failure of Referendum 65, only two of the last six ballot measures sponsored by him have reached the ballot. Voters approved only one of the two, last year's innocuous I-900. It empowered the state auditor to conduct performance audits of state and local government agencies, but the Legislature had already passed a similar law.

"Now he's coming in and hijacking issues and shoving his way into an issue because it's become a business for him. It's how he gets paid," said Chris Vance, former chairman of the state Republican Party and now a consultant with The Gallatin Group in Seattle."

Also to be noted here is that the number of signatures Eyman claimed were collected is not just a few thousand short but actually about 30,000 signatures short. Here is how I arrive at that number. The number of validated signatures of registered voters Referendum 65 required to be placed on the November ballot was 112,440.

Campaigns however always target to collect about 20 to 25% more because many signatures turn out to be invalid for a number of reasons. These include people not registered to vote, or not signing with the address they are registered at, or signing more than once.

Subtracting the 105,103 Eyman claims he had from 112,440 left him 7,337 signatures short. Now take 20% of 112,440. That's 22,588. Eyman and the churches really needed another 29,925 signatures to be fairly certain of getting on the ballot. They were almost 30,000 signatures short of guaranteeing success.

Eyman's only remaining hope for success this year with signatures is Initiative 917 He claims he has about half the needed signatures with a month to go. But he is not doing it with volunteers. The truth is that since his first initiative, he has had to buy signatures by paying out of state signature gatherers to help him.

Even what should have been a popular volunteer effort on performance audits last year was mostly from paid signature gathers. Eyman's main source of funding for the last several years has been one individual, a retired businessman named Michael Dunsmire. Without this sugar daddy we would see even less of Eyman.

Right Wing Churches and Eyman Fail Miserably. Great! R-65 Dead!

The Right Wing Churches and Tim (Frat Boy ) Eyman just couldn't do it. They couldn't come up with anywhere near enough signatures to turn Referendum 65 into the Washington Secretary of State's office by the 5 P.M. deadline today.

And we'll never know how few signatures they actually got because Eyman tried to make it look like they were close. But Eyman is a stunt man and that's all that today's waste of media time and staff time at the Secretary of States office shows. If he was down there with nowhere near the number of necessary signatures, he for a second day in a row wasted the taxpayers money.

He can claim he didn't know, but come on, there is such a thing as cell phones and you're not prohibited from counting signatures on an airplane. Eyman claims that the Fagins were flying over petitions from Spokane The Christian Coalition said they had collected some 14,000 or so. That's a long way from making it if you add Eyman's earlier claim of signatures.

My guess is he probably only got 40,000 to 50,000 signatures. The reason. Eyman didn't have any money to pay signature gathers like he's done since his first initiative. He doesn't have a bunch of initiative groupies hanging out with him. So with no volunteers or money he's lucky he got what he did. But you can't believe the number he says.

Yesterday he dragged a bunch of boxes along with him in Olympia when he tried to fool the press to give him free publicity but they were for a different initiative. If he had a lot of signatures he would have showed them yesterday to urge people to help at the last minute. But how would that help if you don't really have many to show.

So I think Eyman made up a number that means nothing today. The end result is he failed once again.

Call Your Senators Today to Oppose Repeal of Inheritance Tax on Multimillionaires.

The Republican Senate is on the verge of repealing the estate tax to benefit their multimillionaire donors. The following information, except the next paragraph, is taken almost entirely as written from e-mails from the Washington Tax Fairness Coalition and the Childrens Alliance, which sent out e-mail alerts.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that in Washington State only 1.1% of the toal estates in 2004 or 493 were subject to the Federal estate tax. Only inheritance assets exceeding $1.5 million were taxed. The current amount not being taxed is $2 million so the number of estates should be even less than in 2004. In 2009 the limit will go up to $3.5 million. In many cases the assets being taxed are capital gains that previously were not taxed.

Call toll free now to tell the Senate NOT to Slash the Estate Tax!

We hope you will join with people across the country to call your Senators with a simple message:

“Please vote no on any effort to repeal or drastically cut the estate tax. It does not make sense to cut funding for education and healthcare and other programs vital for the future of our nation so we can giveaway hundreds of billions of dollars (or even more!) to a handful of multimillionaires.”

Toll-free Number: 800-459-1887

Use the toll-free number above to reach the U.S. Capitol Switchboard and ask to be connected to your Senators' offices. Call twice - once for each Senator. (The person at the switchboard can figure out who your Senators are if you're not sure. Washington State's two Senators are Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray). When you’re connected, please give your own version of the message above.

The toll-free number is provided courtesy of the American Friends Service Committee which has launched a budget campaign, AFSC welcomes groups to circulate and use the toll-free number in support of non-partisan budget goals and without linking the alert to a website soliciting donations or actions which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work.

Where things stand: In order to get the estate tax repeal (H.R. 8) on the Senate floor, there needs to be a “motion to proceed.” That vote is now expected as early as this Thursday, June 8. Opponents of repeal will object, and then it will take 60 votes to move forward and take up the estate tax. This is tricky, because some Senators may vote to start the debate, even if they say they oppose repeal. But in our view, there is a very long list of items the Senate should be taking up before this – like, say, raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits for Katrina survivors (benefits just expired!), reversing recently enacted cuts in vital services, and getting to work protecting services from additional cuts in the new appropriations bills. So we think a motion to proceed to repeal/slash the estate tax is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. We have a good chance of stalling repeal now if Senate offices hear from us.

Very useful new state data: Citizens for Tax Justice has pulled together brand new data from the IRS showing how many estates paid the estate tax in 2004, broken down by state. For example, in Maine, only 124 estates were subject to the tax in 2004 – only 1 percent of the total deaths in the state the year before. Nationwide, only a little more than 30,000 multi-millionaire estates paid this tax on inheritance.

And remember – starting in 2009 estates worth less than $3.5 million are exempt (or less than $7 million for couples). That’s up from the current $2 million exemption – and that means even fewer will be paying the tax in the future than paid it in 2004.

We hope you will forward this request to make calls to your networks, and that you will call. Thanks!

Eyman Plays Press for Publicity - Fails to Turn in Signatures on Referendum 65

Eyman told the media last week he was going to turn in signatures to the Washington Secretary of State today for Referendum 65 - to overturn the state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. He didn't turn any in but did raise the ire of the media who felt they were lied to as Eyman tried to stage a pep rally with the press present to promote his initiative business, which seems to be faltering these days.

The Stranger's blog, Slog, said it in their headline. "Eyman & Co. to Media: "Feel like you've been duped this morning - well, you have.

“Feel like you’ve been duped this morning — well, you have.” The reporters weren’t having it. When Eyman tried to use his camera time to stump for R-65 and a car tabs initiative he’s pushing this year, a radio reporter cut him off, telling Eyman that the media wasn’t there to air a commercial for him. A print reporter asked Eyman if he was even capable of running a successful referendum campaign without misleading people (as Eyman’s been doing with R-65), and without misleading the press. Eyman didn’t have a good answer for that one, except to say that he doesn’t care what reporters think of him, as long as they write about him"

Here's KING TV's take: "Reporter's Angered by Eyman's latest stunt."

"Referendum 65 sponsor Tim Eyman on Monday staged a media stunt at the Secretary of State's office that met with some heated words from some reporters who felt "duped." ... Some reporters accused him of intentionally misleading the media. Said one,” You’re duping the press in order to help promote your signature drive in the final days.” “I think it’s fair to say that we are willing to do whatever’s necessary in order to make sure our supporters know that we have the final days to get signatures in order to qualify for the ballot,” Eyman replied."

NPI Blog Breaking - Eyman Uses News Again
Most major media outlets (including the three big Seattle TV stations) were there, and many reporters were disgusted to learn that Tim was once again just trying to use them. Seattle Times chief political reporter David Postman and Stranger reporter Eli Sanders were among the most angered, and peppered Tim with pointed questions about his motives and credibility

The Seattle Times Postman on Politics Eyman Dupes Press, Wastes Taxpayer Dollars

"Tim Eyman and his initiative partners duped the media and the secretary of state's office this morning into thinking he was coming to Olympia to turn in signatures for his campaign to repeal the state's gay rights bill. But Eyman and Jack and Mike Fagan had nothing to turn in, instead using the press gathered outside the secretary of state's office to promote both Referendum 65 and a separate tax-cutting initiative he is pushing for the November ballot.

The secretary of state's office had brought in two temporary workers in anticipation of processing petitions a day before the referendum deadline. Those workers were then sent home, though by state work rules, each were paid for two hours of work. A third worker was taken from other chores to stand by for the petitions that Eyman told the office he was bringing down."

And then there is Rich Roessler of the Spokesman Review's Eye on Olympia "Think you have been duped this morning? Well you have.
"Tim Eyman, who'd announced in an email last week that he'd be "bringing down petitions" to the Secretary of State's office Monday, showed up Monday as promised. Reporters figured "bringing down" petitions meaned "turning in" petitions, as did the Secretary of State's office, which had seven staffers on hand, ready to count the thousands of petitions they expected. (Two were temps, hired at $12-$14 an hour just for this.)"

So what is new. Eyman did the same thing with Initiative 864 in 2004, which would have cut funding for local government services like police, fire departments and libraries. He was then also far from getting the minimum number of required signatures but he still required that the Secretary of State pay for having extra workers there to process petitions based on his knowingly lying that he was going to turn signatures in so that the media would show up.

He likewise staged a press conference complete with a phony graph on property taxes that he later admitted to the Seattle PI was not correct. He later still used the graph in other presentations. He used the press conference to promte I-892 to increase gambling in Washington state. That initiative failed decisively at the ballot that fall.

Before I had read the Postman blog and also Rich Roessler's I had also independently confirmed with Pam Floyd in the Elections Department of the Secretary of State's Office that Eyman had not contacted them to let them know he was not turning in signatures today. She also confirmed that she had hired two temporary workers at approximately $12 to $14 an hour to come in to help. Because he has said he was turning in signatures tomorrow she will also have to pay these workers to come in tomorrow.

Floyd also said that there would be 5 or 6 other part time workers in tomorrow, the same as today, based on the expectation from Eyman setting up an appointment that there would have been petitions to process. They also make in the range of $14 to $14 an hour. I suggested to her that she they charge Eyman for the temporary workers they had to pay because Eyman falsely told them he was turning in signatures.

She said she was meeting with Sam Reed at 3:00 and I urged her to tell Sam Reed he also needed to send a letter to Eyman on his false representation to the Secretary of State's Office that he was turning in signatures. Eyman did not tell the Secretary of State's office he had no petitions to turn in because the Secretary of State's Office would then notify the press and there would have been no Eyman pep rally.

The problem is that Eyman as a result knowingly used public resources to both support his business venture and a political campaign which is against the law. In essence he asked the state to do something that was both in violation of the law and the Washington State Constitution.

Link now to Robert Kennedy Jr's article on Republican's Stealing Ohio's 2004 Vote

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

The Rolling Stone Article is now on the web.

See the article on Rolling Stone

Robert Kennedy Jr. -Ohio Election Fraud story update-

Brad Blog has just posted an excerpt from the Robert Kennedy Jr. story. See more on Brad Blog.
I'm including a quote taken from BradBlog written by Kennedy to whet your appetite . I think these are charges by a reputable, respected person that can no longer be ignored.

"The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the Electoral College. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count. ...

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election.

Go to BradBlog to catch more of the story.

Breaking Story Robert Kennedy Jr 350,000 Votes Stolen in Ohio in 2004!

Brad Blog has posted that Robert Kennedy, Jr has written a 10 page documented feature article for Rolling Stone Magazine alleging that Ohio's vote in the 2004 Presidential election was stolen. We've heard all the rumors. At some point rumors either die or they become fact. I'm looking forward to reading the actual article. I also have a personal interest - I grew up in Ohio.

Brad Blog says "Evidence shows high-level Republicans suceeded in scheme to steal election in Ohio!" The on-line version will be posted soon and the print edition of Rolling Stone will hit the newstands on Friday.

Kennedy's article is headlined on the front page of the Rolling Stone, "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election- How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" Brad Blog says that in the article Kennedy asserts that a concerted effort by high level officials was made to steal the election for Bush and that they were successful. Kennedy confirms to BradBlog that the Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was "certainly in on" the scheme. Additionally Bradblog says that there are indications of links to the White House. My guess , our friend (Fiend) Karl Rove, from his past history, would be someone to check out.

South Dakota Shows Washington State the Progressive Use of the Initiative and Referendum Process

Here in Washington State there have been a spate of liberal moaners complaining about conservatives putting initiatives and referendums on the ballot. One of the most recent is an attempt by conservative churches and a for profit ballot initiative promoter to get signatures for Referendum 65. Referendum 65 is an attempt to repeal a recently passed state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The group opposed to R-65 is Washington Won't Discriminate.

In South Dakota, citizens have shown why there is a need for the initiative and referendum process as a safeguard and that it can also work for progressives. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has turned in over 38,416 signatures, more than 20,000 over the minimum 16,278 needed, to place HB 1215 on the November ballot. HB 1215 would have banned all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. To learn more about their campaign and to make a contribution contact Focus: South Dakota

South Dakota shows us why the initiative and referendum process is needed and that progressives need to get involved in the issues, rather than bemoan the process. You can either let conservatives dominate the ballot or progressives can push their own measures and have the conservatives on the defensive. Recently progressives have been on the defense because they have not been using the initiative process as much to promote progressive causes. As a result they have had to spend a lot of their time and money trying to ward off conservative attacks from bad initiatives.

South Dakota was the first state to adopt the initiative and referendum process. They did so in 1898. Since then they have enacted 17 initiatives and rejected 31. Their first successful initiative dealt with a state primary system. In 1980 they rejected an initiative that would have banned the Legislature from changing any voter passed initiative. Initiatives that passed included voter approval of nuclear waste disposal compacts, banning corporate hog farms, and prohibiting mourning dove hunting.

Washington first enacted its initiative and referendum process in 1912. Of 912 initiatives to the people filed through last year, 125 have made it onto the ballot. 63 have passed and 62 have failed. Of 354 initiatives to the legislature filed, 28 were certified. 18 passed and 13 failed. The following history is from the national Initiative and Referendum Institute's website.

In 1907 the state's organized labor and farm groups cooperated with the Direct Legislation League in deluging the legislature with petitions calling for statewide I&R. Soon after, the I&R bill introduced by State Rep. Glenn N. Ranck of Vancouver passed the lower house 66 to 26, but the state senate defeated it 25 to 15. An I&R supporter noted that "just two forces" opposed I&R: "special privileged corporation interests and the organized liquor traffic," the latter because it feared voters would enact a Prohibition initiative.

The state Federation of Labor, whose president was Charles Case, and the state Grange, whose "master" (i.e., president) was C. B. Kegley, formed a Joint Legislative Committee that finally got the I&R amendment through both houses of the legislature in 1911. However, the version passed by the legislature did not allow voters to initiate state constitutional amendments, because certain state senators, with the active support of Governor Hay, insisted that an amendment receive at least 60 percent of all votes cast in a general election in order to pass. The pro-I&R committee refused to accept this compromise, and over 70 years later, there is still no provision for initiatives to amend the state constitution in Washington. Voters ratified the legislature's I&R bill by a five to two margin in 1912, and in the same election, George Cotterill was elected mayor of Seattle.

While by no means complete, the Initiative and Referendum Institute notes some major legislation enacted in Washington by the initiative process, including statewide prohibition (later repealed), establishing a redistricting commission, establishing Public Utility Districts, setting up the statewide civil service system, requiring that drunk drivers take a breath test, setting a retailer interest rate lid, requiring shorelines management, and requiring that toxic waste cleanup be paid for by polluters.

Others not mentioned in the above list include requiring voter approval before bonds can be issued for large public power projects, establishing a state Presidential primary, the blanket primary system (recently overturned by the courts), permanent voter registration, non-partisan school elections, authorizing joint tenancy in property, providing for Daylight Savings Time, setting up campaign financial disclosure requirements, removing the sales tax on food, increasing the state's minimum wage, reducing school class size, increasing teachers' pay, requiring hazardous waste cleanup at Hanford and doing performance audits.

A more complete list of these can be seen at the Washington Secretary of State's links for initiatives to the people.and initiatives to the legislature that have been approved. The point here is that lots of quality and needed legislation that we take for granted only came about because of the initiative process. While we bemoan conservative efforts to reduce taxes and cut services and protections, that is to be expected. But lots of progressive issues have also gone to the voters. The voters ultimately decide. But if we don't put progressive issues before the voters, we concede the playing field to our opponents.

On the issue of abortion, Washington state voters re-affirmed a woman's right to choose in this state with passage of Initiative 120 in 1991. The initiative effort at the time was controversial because it was not like in South Dakota where rights had been repealed by the Legislature. Here it was a conscious decision to have voters affirm that this was what they wanted. It was a calculated risk of putting the issue to the voters at that time. It was successful after a hard fought campaign but it did part of what initiatives do - they educate voters as to the issues and let them make a choice. They set the political debate.

The ballot title for I-120 was very direct "Shall state abortion laws be revised, including declaring a woman's right to choose physician performed abortion prior to fetal viability?" The vote outcome showed a divided state then but the initiative passed. Some 756,653 voted to approve the measure; some 752,354 voted to not approve. The percentages are 50.01% to 49.86%.

Progressives prevailed partly because they set up what was to be voted on, rather than letting conservatives define the issues and strategy. That is what we need to do more of. Just as we can not ignore the Washington State Legislature and only respond to oppose bills we don't like; we can not ignore the initiative process and only get active when there is something we oppose.

We need to be actively promoting legislation both in the Legislature and by initiative. Efforts by the environmental community in the Legislature with proactive bills being passed for the last 2 years shows that success is possible. This year's effort to get Initiative 937 on the ballot also represents a proactive stance. Initiative 937 promotes the use of renewable energy and decreases our dependence on foreign oil. We need to help insure its success by helping it meet its signature deadline. Help out by contacting the campaign at Yes on 937 They need help collecting signatures and also contributions to fund their efforts.