NPI Radio Alert

Just an advisory: I'll be on the Kirby Wilbur Show tomorrow at 6 AM to discuss Washington Defense and Initiative 912 with Kirby himself. Tune in if you can. A clip of my appearance will be posted here on the blog later tomorrow as well.

Wrapping Up Day Six

Day Six of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is over. We started a bit late today (9:30 AM) and ended early as well (4:35 PM). The trial resumes tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM.

David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org has become a regular on John Carlson's weekday KVI show, appearing along with local wingnut Stefan Sharkansky. He was on yet again today and we again have clips from the show that you can listen to.

NWPT48

Major highlights today included the testimony of state elections director Nick Handy. Handy testified that Dino Rossi has consistently made claims that were not based on facts in order to undermine the public’s confidence in Washington’s election system.

He also said he didn't give any credence to claims of fraud or ballot box stuffing, which the Republicans alleged in their opening statement on Day One.

The GOP has focused all its energy on King County but neglects to note that there were errors in twenty counties, not just King County.

And, of course, you can read all about Dale Foreman's outrageous cross examination antics in our earlier post today.

Moving on: this afternoon, Democrats called Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger to the stand to testify. David Postman of the Seattle Times reports on why his testimony was so critically important:

Terwilliger is explaining discrepancies -- which a Democratic attorney called "statistical quirks" -- between the number of votes counted in the election and the number of people shown as having voted.

Terwilliger said there are a number of reasons for such discrepancies. One, which he called a "mis-filing exercise," resulted in some voters being shown as having voted in the wrong precincts.

Democratic attorney Kevin Hamilton said, "It's still possible to lose track of absentee ballots after you receive them?"

Terwilliger said that because of human error it was still possible.

Last was John Pearson, the state's deputy elections director. Pearson was supposed to retire last summer, but he has been repeatedly called back to help during the last few months by the Secretary of State's office.

Pearson's testimony was similar to Handy's, although it was much, much shorter.

As usual, we have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're continuing to update our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

The Long Emergency - An Intro to the Works of James Howard Kunstler

I found a very intriguing interview of one of America's leading social critics, James Howard Kunstler, in the online environmental magazine Grist.

In the interview, Kunstler offers profound and alarming insights on what he views as the impending collapse of our oil-driven, suburban lifestyle and the postindustrial economy itself.

He argues that because of our monolithic dependence on a now-shrinking global reservoir of fossil fuels, our economy, culture, and lifestyle are not only harmful to the environment but also deeply unsustainable and ultimately self-destructive.

Kunstler argues that the end of cheap oil is already upon us, and that we Americans are in for a rude awakening, a drastic readjustment of lifestyle comparable to the Black Plague of the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century.

While some would deride Kunstler as an alarmist doomsayer, his observations are intriguing and insightful nonetheless. Apparently even a dramatic increase in the use of sustainable fuels would do little to forestall the devastation, saying:

"No combination of alternative fuels is going to allow us to run the U.S. the way we're running it or even a substantial fraction of it."

Most disturbing of all, Kunstler notes that:

"They are going to be living in a period of turbulence and political vicissitude. Industrial farming is going to fail by increments and we are going to have to grow more food closer to home. Agriculture is going to become much more central to the American way of life and economy and going to occupy a much larger percentage of jobs. The places that will be successful will be the smaller towns situated near viable agricultural land.

There is going to be this huge new class of people in America who I call the "formerly middle class" and they're going to be really ticked off and bewildered about why they were deprived of their entitlements to the American Dream. The easy motoring lifestyle will be unaffordable for the masses, so the 21st century is going to be much more about staying where you are and much less about being in motion all the time."

Are we really ready to endure such hardships?

Here is a link to the full interview with Grist Magazine.

I highly recommend the works of Mr. Kunstler. In addition to his upcoming book The Long Emergency, he also writes with acerbic wit about urban design and its influence on American culture.

Paramount to his writings is the belief that contemporary suburban design is in large part responsible for the impending catastrophe now looming over us.

Interested in learning more? Consult his other books, The Geography of Nowhere, Home from Nowhere, and The City in Mind, which offer some of the most incisive critiques of modern suburban design ever written. I personally have found him to be an excellent resource for information on planning and environmental policy.

Washington Post Confirms Identity of "Deep Throat"

Stunning news today from California and Washington D.C.:

The Washington Post today confirmed that W. Mark Felt, a former number-two official at the FBI, was "Deep Throat," the secretive source who provided information that helped unravel the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s and contributed to the resignation of president Richard M. Nixon.

The confirmation came from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and their former top editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee.

The three spoke after Felt's family and Vanity Fair magazine identified the 91-year-old Felt, now a retiree in California, as the long-anonymous source who provided crucial guidance for some of the newspaper's groundbreaking Watergate stories.

The Vanity Fair story said Felt had admitted his "historic, anonymous role" following years of denial.

In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."

After so many years of mystery, we finally know who the top-secret source behind Woodward and Bernstein's reporting really was. Considering Felt's position, it's not a surprise that he is indeed the mysterious "Deep Throat".

Felt should be commended for his role in bringing down Nixon and his crime-ridden administration. The "Deep Throat" story will remain an unforgettable part of 1970s history.

Midday Update: Foreman goes too far

It's been a charged morning inside the Chelan County courthouse, Archerhouse tells us. GOP attorney Dale Foreman has been cross examining Nick Handy, the state elections director under Secretary of State Sam Reed.

NWPT48

And Foreman has taken his questioning too far. It's clear that he wants to be in attack mode, like a dog sniffing out his prey, and in the process, he's crossed the line between what's appropriate and what is not.

While it's not a surprise that we can see the partisan anger bubbling up from inside Foreman, it's ridiculous that he can't seem to control himself. Take this first line:

Foreman: Aren't you a cheerleader for the state auditors?

Not only is that question completely ridiculous, but it's an insult to Mr. Handy. Clearly, Foreman is seeking to mock Mr. Handy by asking him inappropriately phrased questions. This lack of respect, inside the courtroom, is astonishing and appalling.

In response to Handy's statement that he believes the Secretary of State has been fair and impartial throughout the entire process - and in an uncalled-for display of arrogance and anger, Foreman intoned:

Foreman: "HOW can you say that? How can you say that? You're under oath!"

The Court has recessed for lunch. When it reconvenes, Foreman will finish his cross examination of Handy. And hopefully, Democratic lawyer Jenny Durkan will have some followup for Handy so that Foreman will be properly rebutted.

If you're interested in more reports on this morning's developments, you can check out David Postman's dispatches for the Seattle Times.

If you want a thorough recap of what happened last week, you can find one on our Election Challenge Highlights page. This page is a thorough index of news stories, blogs, columns, and other material related to the trial.

ALSO: In an important development unrelated to the trial:

A former FBI official claims he was "Deep Throat," the long-anonymous source who leaked secrets about President Nixon's Watergate coverup to The Washington Post, his family said Tuesday...W. Mark Felt, 91, was second-in-command at the FBI in the early 1970s. His identity was revealed Tuesday by Vanity Fair magazine, and family members said they believe his account is true.

It's very interesting. Will the Washington Post reporters confirm the story upon Felt's death? We'll have to wait and see.

Week two of trial set to begin

The Court will be reconvening this morning at 9:30 AM for Week Two in the election contest trial. There are four days of trial left. There's been widespread speculation as to when the judge will rule, but this quote from Nick Handy shows there's a strong chance the judge will rule on Friday:

Whatever the judge rules, Handy said he expects it Friday, the expected last day of the trial. So far Bridges has made all his rulings from the bench.

NWPT48

“This guy is just on top of everything,” Handy said.

We'll be paying special attention on Friday as the trial wraps up - so stay tuned.

Once again, Archerhouse is doing a LIVE Trial Diary at Daily Kos, keeping you apprised to developments out of Wenatchee. We'll post more lengthy updates here as well. And Pacific NW Portal has also been updated with the latest news stories on the court case.

Election contest trial: the week ahead

Well, starting tomorrow, our brief respite from the myriad election contest trial will be over, and all eyes will be focused on the Chelan County courthouse once again. On Friday, the GOP rested its case and the Democrats began presenting theirs, beginning by bringing up ten county auditors to testify from the stand.

NWPT48

But in the next four days, we'll see a lot more from the defense as the GOP's claims and allegations are deconstructed and debunked.

I watched the trial every day last week, barely missing a beat. And I wasn't impressed by the GOP's presentation. After I heard Foreman's opening statement on Monday, I became convinced that this case is all about rhetoric and not about solid evidence.

Incompetence is not fraud. That's where a big problem lies: the GOP legal team seems unable to distinguish between the two concepts. They're getting the terms confused.

But even while Rossi's lawyers are mixing things up in court, they're making statements like these outside on the courthouse steps:

“If [Judge Bridges] says we have to show how individual voters voted, we lose,” Virginia-based Republican lawyer Mark Braden said Friday afternoon.

So Braden is basically saying that if Judge Bridges ultimately rejects "proportional deduction", the GOP is screwed.

The judge has allowed the GOP to make its proportional deduction presentation, but he only did that because he wants as much evidence as possible into the record to make it appeal-proof. He doesn't want the state Supreme Court, which doesn't consider new evidence, to send the case back to him. And that's just being smart.

On Friday, Danny Westneat penned a zinger of a column about the GOP'S confusion of fraud and incompetence (Shame on GOP for trial sham) in which he wrote:

That's it? That's all you've got?

After coming into court and saying government officials perpetrated "sinister fraud" to steal the 2004 governor's election, Republicans have finished backing up that claim in the trial in Wenatchee. Their fraud claim, supposedly based on statistical science, wouldn't earn a passing grade on the 10th-grade WASL.

GOP lawyer Dale Foreman told me earlier this week that when I saw the circumstantial evidence of fraud, there would be no doubt in my mind that "somebody was messing with the ballots."

Now that I've seen the evidence, there's no doubt in my mind Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They've shown plenty of evidence that this election was badly marred by mistakes. But they should retract their bogus fraud allegation, immediately and publicly.

Of course they won't retract anything. It'll be up to the Democrats this week to show how wrong the Republicans really are.

The trial kicks off again tomorrow at 9:30 AM. And once again, NPI member Archerhouse has volunteered to provide live updates for us on Daily Kos. Check in with us tomorrow morning to follow the link to his LIVE Trial Diary.

Government goes too far in eminent domain abuse case

We're almost always at complete odds with the radical "property rights" crowd, out to destroy growth management and the critical areas ordinance.

But in the case of Kelo v. New London, we're surprisingly in agreement with them.

The Kelo case is a unique and disturbing example of when government goes too far and abuses its power of eminent domain. The fight over eminent domain is not directly connected to the debate over growth management and the critical areas ordinance, though there are a few similar themes.

The basic idea behind eminent domain, as spelled out by the Constitution, is that government has the right to take private property for "public use", so long as the owner is compensated. The definition of "public use" is the central theme in the Kelo case. Here's a backgrounder from the Institute for Justice:

On July 19, 2004, the Institute for Justice petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one of the most important property rights cases in the past 50 years.

Kelo v. New London puts the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court in the clearest possible terms: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to take property from one private party in order to give it to another private party because the new owner might produce more profit and more taxes for the City from the land?

The rights of all home and business owners hang in the balance.

In a 4-3 decision earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that even if there is nothing wrong with your home, your business or even your neighborhood, the government can use eminent domain to take your land and give it to the developer for his private gain. This ruling is an invitation to disaster because every business generates more taxes than a home and every big business generates more taxes than a small one. If the ruling stands, any property can be taken through eminent domain.

The U.S. Constitution and every state constitution requires that private property only be taken for “public use,” such as a road or a public building, not for private economic gain. The use of eminent domain for the creation of tax revenue is the broadest and most dangerous expansion of eminent domain yet realized.

The time is ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to once again review the constitutional limits on one of the most serious powers a government has at its disposal. The High Court has not considered an eminent domain case dealing with development since Berman v. Parker was decided 50 years ago. With the appeal of the Connecticut decision, the Court may consider whether the Constitution’s public use requirement means anything at all.

The full backgrounder can be read here. We believe that eminent domain is a power that should be used as sparingly as possible. If there is a way to avoid uprooting people from their homes and avoid the systematic deconstruction of neighborhoods, then that alternative should be embraced as often as possible by elected officials.

Governments should not seize citizens' property and then turn it around for someone else's private use. Using the power of eminent domain to aid developers is wrong. The city of New London and other local governments erred badly when they decided to abuse eminent domain. It's these kind of policies that destroy the balance between the rights of the region/community and the rights of individual citizens.

Celebrating Memorial Day

Today's the day when we honor our fallen soliders - those brave men and women who gave their lives in defense of this country. Those who fought and died in the name of freedom, liberty, equality, and opportunity. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your sacrifice and acknowledge that we, the people of the United States, are forever in your debt. Though this organization may oppose the policies of this administration, we stand firmly behind our troops who have willingly volunteered to serve their country.

Washington must resist the lure of Measure 37

The above blog title refers to a don't miss column in this morning's Sunday Seattle Times, written by Joseph W. Tovar, a city management and planning consultant who presently serves as director of special projects at the University of Washington's Northwest Center for Livable Communities.

Tovar writes about the peril of adopting a law similar to Measure 37:

Proposed laws such as Measure 37 are not needed to assure protection from "unconstitutional takings" because the Fifth Amendment already does that. What such state laws really aim to achieve is a dramatic lowering of the bar for when compensation must be paid. Rather than require payment only in situations when no reasonable economic use remains, such measures would instead require that government pay in all instances when any "reduction in value" occurs.

The number of instances in which zoning restrictions may result in some, but not all, reduction in value is astronomical. Strip malls or casinos would be more profitable for certain property owners than homes in many residentially zoned neighborhoods. Farmlands would have greater market value as subdivisions or industrial parks. Flood plains are attractive locations for car dealerships and truck stops. Building-height caps, billboard bans or construction setbacks from salmon-bearing streams would also "reduce the value" of properties when compared with the absence of such restrictions.

Although the language of Measure 37 states "government shall pay," in reality this means "taxpayers shall pay." In view of the scarcity of tax dollars for needed roads, parks, police, firefighters and libraries, laws such as Measure 37 present communities with a Hobson's choice. As is playing out now in Oregon, cash-strapped local governments would waive enforcement of regulations against claimants — regulations that would continue to apply to everyone else.

Tovar's column offers a history lesson and a warning. It also speculates on what the likelihood of a similar proposal in Washington State, and the ominious sign of a deceptive campaign in Oregon:

There was a startling disconnect between Oregonians' support for Measure 37 and their continuing strong support for their state's growth law. They did not grasp that Measure 37 essentially gutted local governments' ability to regulate land use in a predictable, fair and effective way. As the compensation claims continue to roll into city halls and county courthouses, waivers will be issued and the consequences of the voters' disconnect will become all too apparent.

The whole thing is worth reading. It's a brilliantly-worded commentary on the danger that our state faces from a similar attempt to subvert and destroy the Growth Management Act. "Property rights" advocates are good at making a lot of noise, but their interests lie in being able to do whatever they like. It is a mistake to listen to those kind of voices.

We must think instead of our communities, our region, and our future. Six million people live in Washington. Our state grows denser every day. We cannot afford to go backwards - we must move forwards. Any effort to install a law like Measure 37 must be resoundingly defeated.

French voters reject EU charter

The BBC reports on this breaking news:

French voters have rejected the European Union's proposed constitution in Sunday's referendum, President Jacques Chirac has said.

The vote could deal a fatal blow to the constitution, which needs to be ratified by all 25 members states.

Exit polls published just after voting ended put the "No" side at 55%.

Mr Chirac, who had campaigned hard for a "Yes", accepted the voters' "sovereign decision" - but said France would honour its European commitments.

In his short TV address, he added that the rejection created "a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe".

Since we're not French, it's hard to understand the implications of this vote. Nevertheless, we'll make an attempt. Here are some arguments for and against the EU constitution. First, Daily Kos user FrenchSocialist defends the No vote:

The Constitution would make it impossible for a leftist government to implement progressive policies, and that the Constitution would force every nation to conform to the right-wing agenda of a free unregulated laissez-faire market. The Constitution's vision of unity imposes a decidedly right-wing economic model through political force.

Now, Daily Kos user Jerome a Paris defends the Yes vote:

Not approving the Constitution will weaken the European institutions and set back by several years the emergence of Europe as a political power on the world stage. The US will be able to easily continue its policies of divide and rule in Europe, finding lackeys like Blair and Berlusconi today and others in the future.

So make up your own mind. Good or bad? You decide.

Fighting Initiative 912

On the eve of the trial's first day last Sunday, we announced the relaunch of Washington Defense, a project website we've had for a couple years which we are transforming into a campaign against Initiative 912.

We encourage you to take a look and spread the word about it.

Speaking of I-912, John Carlson mentioned yesterday on air that their anti-roads initiative has run into a little roadblock - or, shall we say, pothole.

I-912 was filed a couple of weeks ago (see Washington Defense for more details) but a concerned group of state leaders and citizens have recently challenged the current initiative ballot title and summary (written by the Attorney General's office) in court as allowed by state law to obtain better language.

The group includes former Governor Dan Evans, former Seattle mayor Wes Uhlman, and Rep. Shirley Hankins.

While the challenge to the ballot title isn't likely to hurt or delay the Initiative 912 campaign very much, it's welcome to see that this KVI-sponsored effort is being closely watched and monitored.

One more for the Idaho blogosphere

Note: Our new regular feature covering the Daily Show highlights does not appear again this week because the show was on hiatus.

The team behind Pacific Northwest Portal has discovered another progressive Idaho blog that's been missing from our Blogs & Websites directory. We're pleased to announce the inclusion of the Political Game in our directory.

We're always looking to expand our directory - so if you know of a progressive blog or website in Washington, Oregon, or Idaho that we don't have, please head over to our feedback page and let us know right away!

Wrapping Up Day Five

Day Five of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is over. We started a bit late today (9:30 AM) but also ended late as well (5:30 PM). The trial resumes next Tuesday morning at 9:30 AM.

David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org has become a regular on John Carlson's weekday KVI show, appearing along with local wingnut Stefan Sharkansky. He was on yet again today and we will again have a clip from the show that you can listen to - stay tuned.

NWPT48

So, recapping this afternoon (you can read the morning recap in our last post): the Democrats began presenting their case by calling ten different county auditors/elections administrators to the stand. The auditors were all pretty much asked the same questions.

As Jim Klockow notes:

Democrats have focused on the persistent discrepancies between voters credited with voting and actual ballots cast or that they don't go through the process of crediting voters in the way King County does.

...Democrats are clearly trying to prove that the problems that Republicans are focusing in King County happen in other counties of the state as well, including counties that went for Rossi.

This is the end of Week One. Week Two begins next Tuesday, and the Democrats will start off by calling more witnesses to the stand. We'll finish hearing from county auditors then.

As usual, we have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're continuing to update our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

Trial at halfway mark

It's already past noon in Wenatchee, and the judge has finally recessed the court for an hour. This morning, the Republicans finally rested their case, and the Democrats asked the court to dismiss the election challenge entirely. The judge refused, as expected.

With the GOP done making its presentation, it's now the Democrats' turn to make their case in the trial. They'll start this afternoon and finish a week from today.

It's not clear when the judge will rule. He may do so on the last day of the trial, or he may wait until afterwards.

If you want a thorough recap of what happened this past week, you can find one on our Election Challenge Highlights page. This page is a thorough index of news stories, blogs, columns, and other material related to the trial.

I'd like to take a moment here to congratulate NPI member Archerhouse for his tireless work covering the trial for all of us in his LIVE Trial Diaries on Daily Kos. It takes a lot of work to watch a trial, digest it, and report it continuously.

I know many people appreciate what he's doing and thank him for providing such a useful service. It certainly allows me to forego doing the same thing here on this blog, thus we are able to complement each other's efforts.

You can check out his latest LIVE Trial Diary here.

Last day in first week of trial begins

The court just reconvened earlier at 9:30 AM. Today, the GOP will be wrapping up its case. They'll be seeking to admit more evidence into the record and we'll hear some last testimony from GOP witnesses. Then the Republicans will rest their case. The Democrats will seek to have the case dismissed entirely.

NWPT48

If Judge Bridges refuses (and he will) then Democrats will begin presenting their case, which will take up the remainder of the time in this trial.

And, once again, Archerhouse is doing a LIVE Trial Diary at Daily Kos, keeping you apprised to developments out of Wenatchee. We'll post more lengthy updates here as well. And Pacific NW Portal has also been updated with the latest news stories on the court case.

Wrapping Up Day Four

Day Four of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is over. We started a bit early today (8:30 AM) but also ended early as well (4:05 PM). The trial resumes tomorrow at 9:30 AM.

David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org is becoming a regular on John Carlson's weekday KVI show, appearing along with famed local wingnut Stefan Sharkansky. He was on yet again today and we again have a clip from the show that you can listen to.

NWPT48

We covered most of the day pretty well with our Noontime Briefing that we posted earlier. Because of the early ending today, there's not a lot to report that happened in the afternoon. UW Professor Anthony Gill did testify for the GOP. His testimony was basically a backup to everything Katz said - although Gill said under oath that he arrived at the same conclusions "independently".

One other important thing happened: the judge decided to postpone ruling on the outcome of the Frye hearing. This decision fits into a predictable pattern Judge Bridges has been adhering to since the beginning of this case. He wants to hear as much as he can so nobody can complain that they lost because their case wan't heard.

What this means is the GOP is going to proceed with the presentation of their case. The Frye hearing was still important, though, and the judge will make a decision - just not today. The Democrats will ask Bridges to dismiss the case entirely tomorrow. They know he won't do this, though, so they're ready to begin making their case the moment the GOP legal team rests.

Lawyers David Burman and Mark Braden were the go-to lawyers for today, with hardly any of the other lawyers making an appearance at the podium.

As usual, we have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're continuing to update our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

Bolton temporarily blocked

We take a break from trial reporting to bring you this breaking news:

After hours of heated exchanges over President Bush's nominee for the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a Senate vote to cut off debate on John Bolton failed late Thursday.

The cloture vote would have paved the way for a final Senate vote on the controversial nominee.

Republicans needed 60 votes to cut off the debate, and the vote was 56-42.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said he wants a vote on the nomination to occur before the Memorial Day holiday.

NWPT45

After cloture, Bolton would need a simple majority to be confirmed by the Senate, which has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent.

The debate on Bolton's nomination will now likely resume next month after senators return from their weeklong holiday break.

Very good! This is a smart move on the Democrats' part. It's not a true filibuster; the Dems are just holding off on cutting off the debate until the Bush Administration stops grandstanding and hands over the information they've requested on Bolton.

Also, we've heard that apparently, Democrats Landrieu (Louisiana) and Nelson (Nebraska) voted to cut off debate...we wish they would stick with the caucus.

Noon Briefing from Chelan County

The Chelan County Superior Court is once again on lunch break, so we're bringing you a noon briefing covering what's happened today.

Finally, the trial isn't boring any more. Since we're through Reed's deposition, as well as Huennekens' and Way's testimony, we finally got to the exciting part - the Frye Hearing. It began this morning after both sides had finished questioning Clark Bensen, a factual expert for the GOP who also works for Polidata.

NWPT48

The GOP called Professor Jonathon Katz to the stand. They'd barely gotten started when Democratic lawyer David Burman raised an objection, triggering the Frye Hearing. The Frye Hearing is a legal test to determine whether that the science the expert witnesses basing their case on is accepted, sound, and reliable.

So, basically, the Democrats were challenging the methodology and the analysis Katz has done. They did this in two main ways: (1) First, Burman conducted a lengthy cross examination of Katz, and (2) the Democrats brought up their own experts - Christopher Adolph and Mark Handcock - to explain why Katz' methodology is not sound science.

The methodology that Katz is presenting to the court is known as "proportional deduction" (other names have been proposed for it; Democrats call it "speculative attribution"). Based on geographical data, the Republicans want to sutract illegal votes based on the voting patterns of an individual precinct.

This approach is flawed because, as the Democrats clearly pointed out, it does not take into account any other information - particularly demographic information. Legal voters and illegal voters are simply not exactly alike.

Here's a few excerpts from David Postman's notes:

Democrats' expert witnesses have criticized the Republican theory of "proportional deduction" in part because the sample of illegal votes the GOP is using was hand-selected by Republicans; that is, it doesn't necessarily reflect the entire universe of illegal votes.

Especially since the Democrats have their own list of felon voters to use as backup in the case. Another excerpt:

Before the lunch break Burman asked Handcock about the one election case he has written about. It turns out that the Pennsylvania case involved proportional deduction, and Handcock said it had included a survey of voters and testimony from a number of the alleged illegal voters.

It's worth nothing that the GOP's case here didn't include a survey of voters or testimony. The GOP says felon voters cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Isn't that interesting? Another dispatch from Postman:

UW professor Christopher Adolph, the Democratic Party's expert witness, said that since 1950 scientists have been cautioned about "aggregation bias" and "ecological fallacy" that could skew results when using ecological inference.

He said one example is that the Republican theory assumes that the sample of alleged felons are exactly the same as the total group of voters in a given precinct. But, he said, the list of felons has a much higher percentage of males than the wider population.

The Republican method "is very badly flawed," Adolph said, because it "commits the ecological fallacy and assumes felons are just like everyone else."

Adolph, by the way, made an excellent presentation and was great on the stand. He was very cool under fire when questioned by Mark Braden, one of the GOP's lawyers. For never having testified in court before, he made a very good showing.

Archerhouse has thoroughly covered this morning's events in his LIVE Trial Diary. You can find more specific summaries about what transpired by following the link above.

Finally, we've got some background information for you on all of the factual and expert witnesses who have testified so far.

Clark Bensen
Clark Bensen, the GOP's factual witness, is a data analyst and attorney long active in politics at the local, state and national levels. He is a Republican, and according to his testimony, his political experience is "solely Republican". He founded Polidata, his own company, in 1974. The company undertakes the collection, analysis and dissemination of data related to the "art of politics".

>> Website: Clark Bensen, Polidata

Jonathan Katz
Jonathan N. Katz, the GOP's first expert witness, is a Professor of Political Science at the California Institute of Technology. He also serves as the Director of Graduate Studies for the Social Sciences at Caltech. His research interests focus on American politics, political methodology (statistics applied to political science), and formal political theory.

>> Website: Jonathan Katz, CalTech

Christopher Adolph
Christopher Adolph, the Democrats' first expert witness, is an assistant professor in political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is also a core faculty member of the Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences (factsheet). He works in the fields of comparative political economy and political methodology.

>> Website: Christopher Adolph, University of Washington

Mark Handcock
Mark Handcock, the Democrats' second expert witness, is a Professor of Statistics and Sociology at the University of Washington. He recieved his Ph.D. in statistics from the University of Chicago in 1989. His research involves methodological development, and is based largely on motivation from questions in the social sciences. His work focuses on the development of statistical models for the analysis of social network data, spatial processes and longitudinal data arising in labor economics.

>> Website: Mark Handcock, University of Washington

There you go. We'll post another update this evening with a full day's recap.

Trial back on early this morning

The court is reconvening at 8:30 AM this morning to continue hearing the gubernatorial election challenge. The Frye hearing is expected to take place today and or tomorrow, if necessary. This hearing will determine whether the judge will accept "proportional deduction", a central part of the Republicans' case.

NWPT48

Experts hired by the GOP will try to make the case to the judge that the science they're basing their case on is accepted, sound, and reliable. First, though, the Democrats will cross examine the GOP's factual witness, Clark Benson.

And, once again, Archerhouse is doing a LIVE Trial Diary at Daily Kos, keeping you apprised to developments out of Wenatchee. We'll post more lengthy updates here as well. And Pacific NW Portal has also been updated with the latest news stories on the court case.

Wrapping Up Day Three

Day Three of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is complete.

Our own David Goldstein (Goldy) of HorsesAss.org was back on John Carlson's show yet again today, along with Stefan Sharkansky of (un)SoundPolitics. We recorded an audio clip of the show, which you can listen to here. You can also access yersterday's clip from the Audio Archive on that same page.

NWPT48

Highlights from today:

Nicole Way's testimony took up much of the day - including all of the morning. Way is the mail ballot supervisor for King County Elections and the GOP's "star witness". The GOP is hoping to use her testimony as a cornerstone of their case. David Postman reported on Judge Bridges' dealings with Way:

Judge John Bridges did his most extensive questioning of a witness yet, going column-by-column through a mail ballot summary and asking a King County supervisor how it was produced. The supervisor, Nicole Way, has already testified that one of the numbers on the report was fudged because the county had lost track of how many absenetee ballots had been returned to the county by voters.

If you're watching the trial, then you probably understand how boring it has been. No smoking gun has emerged for the GOP, and the testimony has revealed little that wasn't already in the depositions.

To put it simply, the trial is no news. And yet, the trial has a lot of significance. There's a reason why we're paying attention to it. It's important, but it is also boring. Things are likely to get more interesting tomorrow and Friday as well as next week when the courtroom debate heats up over the use of "proportional deduction" methodology.

The judge has said he'll hear this evidence. But he made it very clear earlier this month in the last pretrial hearing that he was going to hear it, not accept it outright. He may hear everything the Republicans have to say and then rule against them. Doing so helps insulate him from being overturned in an appeal.

Judge Bridges has been called an impartial judge by many people, and I would agree with that statement. The judge has, for the most part, been very fair, and has brought a degree of respectability to this election contest. But Judge Bridges is also a very smart judge.

And unlike [Pierce County Superior Court] Judge Stephanie Arend, who was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court last December, Bridges is thinking ahead. Doing so allows him to keep the doors open as long as possible for both the Democrats and the Republicans to fan the flames of their arguments.

His strategy is to let each party make their presentation and then make up his own mind - which is what a good judge does. Ultimately, the judge will have to make a ruling. And Bridges simply has understood from the beginning that no matter how he rules, his decision will be appealed. So he is putting forth his best effort to make a solid decision.

A note to all you trial watchers out there: The court reconvenes tomorrow at 8:30 AM instead of 9:00 AM. If you haven't been watching the trial at all, you might want to consider tuning in during the next couple of days. Around the Seattle area, you can tune in on your cable television to Channel 23 (TVW). If you don't have TVW on your television, you can watch streaming video or audio here (both Windows Media and Real formats).

Tomorrow morning, the Democratic team will start cross examination of Clark Benson, the GOP's first "factual" witness. Then both sides hope Bridges will then hold the Frye Hearing on the Republicans' expert testimony.

The Frye Hearing will determine whether Bridges will accept the science of the "propotional deduction" methodology. If the GOP can proceed, it'll call its two expert witnesses - both professors - to lay out their case.

We have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're continuing to update our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

UH-OH for White House: FBI memo reports Guantanamo guards flushing Koran

Breaking from Reuters:

WASHINGTON - An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.

NWPT46

The release of the declassified document came the week after the Bush administration denounced as wrong a May 9 Newsweek article that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet to try to make detainees talk.

The magazine retracted the article, which had triggered protests in Afghanistan in which 16 people died.

The newly released document, dated Aug. 1, 2002, contained a summary of statements made days earlier by a detainee, whose name was redacted, in two interviews with an FBI special agent, whose name also was withheld, at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects.

The American Civil Liberties Union released the memo and a series of other FBI documents it obtained from the government under court order through the Freedom of Information Act.

"Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet," the FBI agent wrote.

"The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things," the FBI agent wrote.

The Pentagon stated last week it had received "no credible and specific allegations" that U.S. personnel at Guantanamo had put a Koran in the toilet.

This doesn't look good for the White House or the Pentagon. Now what are they going to say about this "false" story?

Lunchtime in Wenatchee

By now, both David Goldstein and I have become thoroughly bored watching this trial...I suspect NPI member Archerhouse, who is continuing to update his LIVE Trial Diaries with the latest information in the election challenge, is also weary.

NWPT48

The whole morning has pretty much been an attempt by the GOP to trick Nicole Way into contradicting herself...and to supply testimony the GOP hopes can be used to show fraud occurred in King County.

Democratic attorney Jenny Durkan is halfway through questioning Nicole Way in cross-examination. The court has recessed for lunch and is reconvening at 1:30 PM. So, at least we'll have a break until then.

Anyway, Archerhouse's reports are pretty detailed, if you want more specifics on what happened. He'll create another LIVE Trial Diary for this afternoon.

David Postman of the Seattle Times continues to send us his dispatches from the courthouse in Wenatchee as well. In fact, Postman is so bored, he's reporting on who's making courtroom appearances (apparently, Attorney General Rob McKenna is coming in this afternoon) and he was sketching out a brief bio of WA Republican power magnate Clyde Ballard.

Owen confirmed, Bolton debate begins

We take a break from trial reporting to bring you this wonderful news:

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday confirmed the first of President Bush's disputed judicial nominees, part of a truce between Democrats and Republicans that will allow the White House to get some of its most conservative choices on the federal bench.
By a largely party-line vote of 56 to 43, the Republican-led chamber confirmed Texan Priscilla Owen for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Great! Another right wing extremist on one of our appeals courts. We can only hope that the spotlight will be on Ms. Owen and that she will moderate some of her extreme views.

Debate is now underway on John Bolton...there is widespread speculation that some Republicans may vote against him. Whether there will enough GOP opposition remains to be seen....

Another day in the trial set to begin

The court will be reconvening at 9 AM this morning to continue hearing the gubernatorial election challenge. The GOP is expected to call more witnesses today, including Nicole Way, who is said to be a key witness in their charges of fraud.

The Frye hearing is also expected to take place today and or tomorrow. This hearing will determine whether the judge will accept "proportional deduction", a central part of the Republicans' case.

NWPT48

And, once again, Archerhouse is doing a LIVE Trial Diary at Daily Kos, keeping you apprised to developments out of Wenatchee, and we'll post more lengthy updates here as well. Pacific NW Portal has also been updated with the latest news stories on the court case.

Wrapping Up Day Two

Day Two of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is just about over, with about twenty minutes left today in court as of my writing this.

Our own David Goldstein (Goldy) of HorsesAss.org was back on John Carlson's show today, along with Stefan Sharkansky of (un)SoundPolitics. We recorded an audio clip from the show, which you can listen to here. You can also access yersterday's clip from the Audio Archive on that same page.

NWPT48

Major highlights from today:

Bridges...ruled that Republicans can introduce evidence of the 875 absentee ballots they say cannot be connected to any voter in King County.

Bridges said he doesn't think the allegation is new. There was a reference to the same problem, he said, in state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance's initial statement filed with the election contest petition.

That was from the Seattle Times' David Postman, who summed up the ruling nicely. As we've said before, this is not a surprise...and it shows the judge doesn't want to preclude evidence.

Chelan County Auditor Evelyn Arnolds was the first witness called by the GOP today, as we noted earlier in our Midday Trial Update.

Bill Huennekens, King County Elections Supervisor, has been on the stand for pretty much the rest of the day...and the GOP is trying to grill him as much as possible. Keep in mind that they're alleging fraud occurred in King County - it's the centerpiece of the case - so this was important testimony for them.

Maguire at several points in time tried to get Huennekens to contradict himself, although Kevin Hamilton, an attorney for the Democrats, raised an objection each time. Bridges sutained many of the objections, although he overruled the majority of them. As David Postman noted:

Democratic Party attorney Kevin Hamilton continually objected to the line of questioning, saying Huennekens' knowledge of the report was hearsay because he only learned it was false from talking to other staff members.

Postman also has some nice quotes from Democratic attorney Kevin Hamilton, who raised a strong counterpoint to Maguire's arguments during the cross examination.

Hamilton's goal is to show the county elections staff as dedicated public servants and to portray any errors in the election count as inevitable, given that 300,000 people voted at the county's polling places Nov. 2.

Hamilton: "Is it possible with 300,000 people showing up on one day, being managed by 3,000 poll workers, that everything would work perfectly without any paperwork errors at all?"

Huennekens: "I don't think it's conceivable for it to be absolutely perfect."

Hamilton: "Democracy is sometimes messy?"

Huennekens: "Sure, yeah."

Hamilton: "But you do your best to conduct the administration of the election in a fair and impartial manner?"

Huennekens: "Yes, I believe we do."

Bridges also noted that the Frye hearing, which will decide the whether proportional deduction for illegal votes is acceptable or not, will be Wednesday (tomorrow) and Thursday.

We'll post further updates as we get them.

We have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're continuing to update our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

Midday trial update

We're halfway through Day Two of the gubernatorial election challenge trial. Archerhouse has been keeping us informed as to what's been going on at his LIVE Trial Diary. An AP report has also been posted from Wenatchee summarizing what happened this morning:

NWPT48

Judge [Bridges] ruled Tuesday that Republicans should be allowed to introduce evidence about King County's inability to match votes to voters...

The question is how far Bridges will let Republicans go with their claims. Democrats protested that the GOP unveiled the fraud allegations at the very last minute, with no evidence to back them up. Republican attorneys responded that they've been scrambling to gather evidence and were able to conduct some key depositions only a few days ago.

On Monday, Bridges agreed that fraud had never been part of the GOP's election contest petition, and said Republican lawyers couldn't use it as a basis for throwing out the election. But he left the door open for considering the evidence.

"The court does not believe there is a fraud causation element to this case, for whatever that's worth," Bridges said. "I am not saying that the evidence is not admissible."

Once again, Bridges is showing his evenhandedness and his foresight by not closing any doors prematurely.

Today the GOP legal team brought up Evelyn Arnolds, the Chelan County Auditor, to testify about elections procedures. The GOP is trying to show that other counties conducted the election differently than King County. The Democrats' Jenny Durkan provided strong counterpoints in her cross-examination.

Then the GOP called up Bill Huennekens. He'll likely be on the witness stand for much of the rest of the day. The GOP is on full attack mode with Huennekens - Maguire even asked the court if he could treat the King County elections supervisor as a hostile witness. King County deputy prosecuting attorney Don Porter objected, and Bridges subsequently denied Maguire's request. David Goldstein has joked that the Republicans are out to Kill Bill.

Archerhouse's reports are pretty detailed, if you want more specifics on what happened. He'll create another LIVE Trial Diary for this afternoon.

David Postman of the Seattle Times continues to send us his dispatches from the courthouse in Wenatchee as well.

David Goldstein is also providing similar updates for his readers at HorsesAss.org (Tuesday’s tedious election contest blog)

Trial resumes this morning

The court will be reconvening at 9 AM to continue hearing the gubernatorial election challenge. Judge Bridges is expected to rule today on a motion filed yesterday by the Democrats seeking to exclude new charges of fraud from the case.

The judge asked the GOP legal team to prepare a written response yesterday, which he will consider today.

NWPT48

Once again, Archerhouse is doing a LIVE Trial Diary at Daily Kos, keeping you apprised to developments out of Wenatchee, and we'll post more lengthy updates here as well. Pacific NW Portal has also been updated with the latest news stories on the court case.

Wrapping Up Day One

Day One of the Washington State gubernatorial election challenge is just about over, with about a half an hour left today in court as of my writing this.

Our own David Goldstein (Goldy) of HorsesAss.org waded into enemy territory today with his nine minute appearance on John Carlson's KVI AM 570 show. We recorded an audio clip of the show, which you can listen to here.

NWPT48

It hasn't been an extremely eventful day, but the Seattle P-I is running a story entitled, "Setback for GOP in governor election trial" (by P-I reporter Gregory Roberts, with reporting from the AP):

Republicans suffered a major blow today to their late-developing strategy to claim fraud in the 2004 governor's race when a judge said that claim cannot stand as a key to their legal challenge of Democrat Christine Gregoire's 129-vote victory.

The decision by Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges was critical because a challenger most likely would need to establish fraud to get an election overturned simply because the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory.

Without fraud, the challenger - in this case, GOP candidate Dino Rossi - faces the much more difficult burden of showing that the winner owes victory to improper votes.

Bridges' decision came in response to a Democratic motion challenging Republican attorneys' fraud allegations.

After Bridges' decision, Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said the Republicans would still be able to present evidence of illegal votes.

It's an interesting take on today's events. The judge hasn't yet ruled on the Democrats' motion to have the fraud charge excluded (which they presented earlier today) because he wanted to give the GOP time to craft a response. He'll rule on the motion tomorrow. Bridges did agree with Democrats that fraud has not been an official part of the Republicans' claim. But he stopped short of excluding the evidence.

We have a full wrap up of what transpired today - and we're launching our index of all Pacific Northwest Portal-affiliated blog posts about the trial.

Filibuster Update

A deal has been reached. Senator McCain describes the details (courtesy Think Progress):

We’re here, 14 Republicans and Democrats, seven on each side, to announce that we have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution.

I’m grateful for the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator Reid to come to an agreement on this issue. We appreciate very much their leadership. And we all appreciate each other’s involvement, but probably the two that I’d like to point out here that provided us with a beacon of where we should go is Senator Byrd, our distinguished senior Democrat leader, and Senator Warner who both were vital to this process.

You have before you the agreement and I won’t go in the details of it. But basically, all 14 of us have pledged to vote for cloture for the judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.

The signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two judges, William Myers and Henry Saad. Future nominations will – the signatories will exercise their responsibilities and the nominees should only be filibusters under extraordinary circumstances.

And in light of this commitment and a continuing commitment, we will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future.

This agreement is meant in the finest traditions of the Senate it was entered into: trust, respect and mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority.

So I’m very pleased to stand here with my other colleagues tonight and I believe that that good-will will prevail.

Nothing in this agreement prevents any individual senator from exercising his or her individual rights.

I would like to ask Senator Nelson and Senator Pryor, but I want to, again, thank my colleagues. And I believe that most Americans would like for us to work these issues out rather than pursue the procedure that we have just departed from, I hope.

We agree with Kos: this was the second best option. Sometimes you just have to settle for less. Frist isn't looking too good right now.

Moving into the afternoon

So the opening statements are over and done with: now, we move on to the real substance of this case. They'll discuss a motion from the Democrats (probably about burden of proof) and then move into the case itself.

Archerhouse is posting updates again this afternoon - he's started a new LIVE Trial Diary to cover the rest of the day.

NWPT48

Goldy also posted his thoughts on the GOP's opening statement earlier this morning (Courtroom update: observations on the GOP’s opening statement) as well as the Democrats' response (Courtroom update: the Dems strike back).

TJ from Also Also has also (no pun intended) chimed in with his morning recap: WA Gov: Day One, Morning Update.

David Postman continues to update his dispatch page from Wenatchee, providing new information.

The P-I and the Tacoma News Tribune are relying on the AP for updates, though their own reporters will probably write the articles for tomorrow's papers.

Live Trial Diary on Daily Kos...

One of our members (Kos username: archerhouse) is posting updates to a live trial diary on Daily Kos. You can go there to follow developments in the trial. We will update here as well, but more slowly than he will be updating, and with less detail, although we will offer more commentary on the overall progress of the trial.

NWPT48

Republican attorney Dale Foreman has a new claim he's whisked out of his sleeve:

"This is a case of election fraud," GOP attorney Dale Foreman said in his opening statement. "This election was stolen from the legal voters of this state by a bizarre combination of illegal voters and bungling bureaucrats."

Foreman surprised the court with a new claim, saying Republicans will prove that Democrats stole the election by stuffing the ballot box in Gregoire's two strongest precincts, and "losing" votes in two of Republican Dino Rossi's strongest precincts.

"The King County data shows partisan bias and not random error," Foreman said. "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

Now Foreman is starting to sound like Stefan Sharkansky and his rag tag chorus over at UnSoundPolitics. Stolen election, indeed. They won't be able to prove their absurd claim of ballot box stuffing.

David Postman of the Seattle Times is publishing dispatches from the Chelan County courtoom:

[Democratic lawyer] Hamilton attacked the Republicans' fraud claim by saying the party has not tried to collect hard evidence of the allegations. He said Republicans have not deposed any polling place inspectors or observers about claims of ballot fraud. Nor have they done an independent count of ballots or envelopes in King County to answer questions about discrepancies in the count.

The Democrats are now making their opening statement at the time of this update.

GOP's hopes of prevailing in challenge are slim

It starts today.

The most anticipated event in the election challenge court case will begin this morning and last for almost two weeks: the trial.

Republicans will present evidence arguing that the election should be thrown out. Democrats will present evidence arguing that the results of the election should not be overturned. Numerous issues will come up during the next few days.

The trial will center on human and machine error in the slimmest of margins: the 0.07 percent of the vote that is being contested because felons or other illegal voters might have cast ballots.

The burden of proof is on the Republicans. They're the ones who complain of illegal votes, discrepancies, problems with reconciliation, and election workers who made mistakes in counting ballots. They're the ones who brazenly claim felon votes put Gregoire over the top. They're the ones who allege fraud but can't prove it.

This trial is not a contest Chris Vance can win by sending out press releases, holding press conferences, or bringing in big shots like Slade Gorton to verbally kick around King County's elections division.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges has gone to great lengths to be as evenhanded as he can. So far, the wingnut crowd has left Bridges alone. But if he makes a decision they don't like, just watch as they jump on the attack bandwagon.

But don't forget that it was the Republicans who went judge shopping in the first place. Hence Borders et al. vs. King County et al.

Based on what Judge Bridges has already said and ruled on, we see the likelihood of the GOP prevailing in this challenge to be very slim indeed. Judge Bridges' strategy so far has been not to close any doors prematurely, which has allowed the GOP to proceed along with this court case.

But in every hearing since the case began, the judge has sounded a cautious tone and paid careful attention to prior precedent. By keeping the doors open, the judge is building a wall around any appeal of his decision. That's why he's allowing the GOP to present its "statistical deduction" theory to the court.

We'll be closely tracking developments in the case here on this blog, and regularly updating the special sections on Pacific NW Portal. You may notice the home page has changed. We've added a special coverage section for the election challenge as well as a Filibuster Wire connecting you to the latest from Daily Kos, which will be following developments in the U.S. Senate very closely.

You can watch the trial on TVW (available to most cable subscribers) or stream it online at TVW's website.

NO on Initiative 912: Washington Defense Relaunched

The Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) is relaunching Washington Defense into a campaign site to fight against Initiative 912 - the initiative to repeal the gas tax passed by the state Legislature back in April.

John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur's rhetoric has become rather tiresome. Their "No New Gas Tax" website is full of lies, and we've decided to set the record straight by giving our side a clear, visible online presence.

We have registered a new domain name for Washington Defense. You can access the site via this URL.

We will continue adding to the site and improving it as events unfold and we discover new information.

Going nonpartisan is a terrible idea

In Oregon, the state Senate recently passed SB 161 - a bill which would make all of the legislative positions nonpartisan. It would also make the Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and Attorney General all non-partisan positions as well.

Kevin from Preemptive Karma writes:

As a long-time Independent I am highly intrigued by this. Of course it came from the narrowly Dem-dominated Senate and now goes to the GOP-dominated House. So it's far from a done deal. I don't know whether Gov. Kulingoski has a position on it and if so what that position might be. But it's exciting that it's gotten this far. And I very much agree with what state Senator Atkinson said.

We strongly disagree with this bill. It's a terrible idea.

This law solves absolutely nothing. If anything, it makes it even harder for voters to figure out what a candidate stands for. When candidates identify themselves as a Democrat or as a Republican helps voters to understand what positions a candidate holds on certain issues.

It's a mistake to expect that voters will become more informed as a result of eliminating partisan identification. The last thing many people want to do is pay more attention to politics. A sweeping change like this would only irritate people who have come to depend on being able to identify who is a Democrat or a Republican.

Grants Pass Republican Jason Atkinson tells Oregon Public Broadcasting:

I think that this bill does two things: 1) it might start to heal the black eye that this body has with the rest of Oregon. And 2) it gives a great opportunity for the little guy to get back involved. Isn't that what we're all here for?

Well, Representative Atkinson, we think it does neither. In fact, we think it does the opposite. You can't just write off political parties and suddenly expect everything to get better. The conflicts will still be there. The only difference will be that everything is less open because all positions will be "nonpartisan".

Kevin from Preemptive Karma asks his audience in his blog: "Could it [SB 161] hurt Oregon?"

Our answer is yes, Kevin. We believe this bill will only do harm to Oregon.

No good can result from trying to axe political parties. As we note in our Special Report on the Top Two Primary:

Voters should bear in mind that political parties provide important services to the democratic process (and that's why all democracies have them).

Some of these services include organization, fundraising, candidate recruitment and training, and the development of stands on issues (a party platform) and the ability to help voters identify candidates with a particular set of positions.

If the parties wither away, other institutions will step in to fill the void.

Without party organizations, elections will degenerate into personality contests. Candidates who already have, or have the money to buy name recognition will enjoy a much greater advantage.

Incumbents, celebrity candidates, and wealthy individuals will become more powerful. And the media would be in an even stronger position to promote their favorite candidates.

Is that really what the voters of Oregon want? We don't think so.

Seattle Times: Toss out felon vote, Gregoire still wins

A Seattle Times exclusive investigation, released this morning, shows that taking out the votes of people the GOP and the Democrats have alleged are felons still results in a win for Christine Gregoire.

The Times' findings are a disaster for the Republicans' claims in the court case:

State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance responded to The Times' analysis by emphasizing the other elements of Rossi's case.

"I'm not disputing the factual things that you've found, but you've got to place it in the context of the case," Vance said. "The felons are just one aspect of the case."

Now, they're just "one aspect".

After all the huffing and puffing the GOP did over the felon vote, it turns out that we were right after all. Getting rid of felon votes does not hand the election to Dino Rossi - even using his own "proportional deduction" method.
It seems the GOP is still trying to go with its "total mess" argument, which is going to collapse in court like a house of cards.

It's highly unlikely the GOP can prevail in this court case. They will have to prove that illegal votes put Christine Gregoire in office. And they don't have any proof of fraud by election administrators or workers.

That isn't something they're going to be able to do. The entire court case seems to rest on top of the "proportional deduction" argument the GOP is making. But that argument will not win them their case.

This lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place. It's the last in a series of desperate maneuvers by the GOP to get Dino Rossi installed as governor. When this court case is over, we hope they quit for good and move on.

Top Two primary a divisive issue

Note: Our new regular feature covering the Daily Show highlights does not appear this week because the show was on hiatus.

The Top Two primary (see our report on why it's unsound for Washington State) remains a divisive issue here in Washington State. It seems a lot of Democrats and Republicans disagree with their party leadership and wish the parties weren't suing to toss out the system imposed by voters in November.

(By the way, you can read the legal brief filed by the Democrats in the case here).

Bloggers Tim Copeland of Blue Washington and Emmett O'Connell from Olympia Time disagree with the parties' lawsuits.

Emmett writes:

"I think the parties' lawsuit against the Top Two, or at least the Democratic Party's, is short sighted in terms of trying to grow our grassroots. The voters have already rejected the open primary option once for the Top Two. From the party leadership point of view, don't you think it would be worse if the voters eventually made all elections non-partisan? If we keep on fighting the voters, we'll eventually get there."

Voters rejected the open primary system because they're not used to having that kind of primary. The blanket primary had been in place for about 70 years.

The bottom line is that the state simply cannot violate the Constitution of the United States of America. If this "top-two" primary system violates the parties' freedom of association (and we agree with them that it does) then it has to go. The court will decide.

It doesn't matter whether a majority of the state's voters like that kind of outcome or not. It doesn't matter if the Grange likes it either. They can't set up a system that doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Most of the rest of the country uses open or closed primary systems without any problem. If they can do it, so can we. It will take some time to transition to an open primary system, but it's worth it.

We believe a proposal to make all elections nonpartisan would fail miserably. Almost all voters I've talked to who say they support the blanket primary and Top Two also say they don't support a proposal to make elections nonpartisan.

The main backlash from the new primary system came directly from the state Grange last year, not voters. As Goldy points out in his blog today, these morons were so stupid that they didn't even bother to refile their initiative proposal after the Legislature changed the law.

They wrote their initiative before the adoption of the open primary and didn't file a new initiative after the law had been changed. This means that the law still says voters have to vote on a partisan ballot. The only difference is that only the top two vote getters will move on...so one Democrat and one Republican.

Secretary of State Sam Reed doesn't care what the law says, though. He's going to try and hold a Louisiana style crossover primary anyway. We strongly disapprove of this arrogant decision.

With any luck, the federal court will get rid of the top two primary system and reinstate a proper open primary system that respects the rights of political parties.

The Portal and Me

Frank Sennett from the Spokane Spokesman-Review has a column today in the paper's "Weekend" section about Pacific Northwest Portal, and also, me (Young progressive schools state's right's wing).

The column talks about the portal's founding, its mission, and also details my history of political involvement:

As he finishes 12th grade in Redmond, Villeneuve was excited to have his first newspaper op-ed piece published as well. His comm