Smiling broadly, Clark declared that her party had won a clear mandate to govern and would move forward with its plans to help oil companies drill more wells and build more pipelines to increase the province’s fossil fuel exports.

Less than an hour and a half earlier, the NDP’s Adrian Dix conceded defeat in front of a subdued crowd of activists who had hoped to be celebrating the end of Liberal rule but instead found themselves shellshocked at the margin of their defeat.

“Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and in British Columbia it often rains,” Dix told supporters as he acknowledged the defeat with dignity.

“Tonight, we are disappointed, but we are unbowed,” he added.

“We’ve elected a very strong team that is going to hold the Government accountable… This party’s determination to bring change will continue.”

Perhaps, but the NDP is now in a much weaker position than it was before the election. That’s not the result Dix wanted, hoped for, or expected.

Dix himself will return to Victoria as the MLA for Vancouver – Kingsway. But he will return with less clout and less credibility than he had when he left to campaign as the public face of the New Democratic Party.

And whether he will remain the party’s leader is an open question. The NDP performed worse with him at the helm than it did with Carole James in 2009. (James, incidentally, won reelection in her own riding and will also return to Victoria).

Speaking with reporters after her victory speech, Clark lavished praise on her party’s volunteers and basked in the glow of victory.

“Oh my gosh, you guys, I’m feeling really honored,” she exclaimed when asked about her reaction to the unexpectedly great results for her party.

Naturally, she was also asked about the polls.

“If there’s any lesson in this, it’s that pollsters and prognosticators do not choose the government,” she replied.

That’s certainly true: we at NPI are fond of saying that the only real poll happens on Election Day (south of the border, here in Washington and Oregon, it’s more like Election Month, but the same principle applies).

However, it appears that the voters in Clark’s own riding are on the verge of choosing someone else to represent them in Victoria. The NDP may well come out of this election with at least the satisfaction of having knocked out Clark in Vancouver – Point Grey with a stellar candidate, David Eby, who used to serve as executive director of the B.C . Civil Liberties Association.

(I profiled Eby on Saturday and came away very impressed).

Eby, who has traded the lead with Clark a couple of times during the course of the night, is presently ahead by several hundred votes, which is rather remarkable. With one hundred and seventy-three of one hundred and seventy-three ballot boxes reported, Eby has a three hundred and sixty vote lead over Clark.

Advance polls (early votes, as we’d say in the U.S.) still need to be counted, but the NDP made a big effort to get British Columbians to vote early, and it seems unlikely that the advance polls will favor Clark.

If Eby ekes out a victory, it will be bittersweet for him, but very satisfying for the NDP… a bright spot on an otherwise very grim electoral map.

Clark would then find herself in the embarrassing position of having to ask one of her own victorious Liberal candidates to step aside so she can hold a seat in the B.C. Legislative Assembly. (As I’ve previously noted, in British Columbia, an MLA does not have to reside in the riding that he or she represents).

As of 11:40 PM, these were the results in Vancouver – Point Grey:

Despite having undoubtedly lost some progressive voters to Françoise Raunet of the Green Party, Eby is still ahead, and leads by a slightly more comfortable margin at present than he did earlier. It’s looking pretty good for him.

It’s been an hour and fifteen minutes since polls closed in British Columbia’s 2013 provincial elections, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) has yet to overtake the Liberals in the count of leading/elected MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly). And it looks like they’re not going to.

As the minutes tick on, the NDP’s chances of victory seem increasingly slim. There is no talk of an NDP landslide now on Canadian networks; in fact, one (CTV) has already called the election for the Liberals, projecting they will retain their majority. And on Global (which I’m watching from here in the States), anchors and pundits are already suggesting that Christy Clark will be basking in the glow of victory tomorrow while the NDP does some soul-searching.

UPDATE, 9:47 PM: Global has now called the election for the Liberals as well.

Why are the Liberals ahead? Well, they’re doing much better than expected in many areas of the  province, including Prince George and the Lower Mainland.

Some of the rising stars the NDP was counting on to help carry the party to victory aren’t faring too well. For example, Chris Wilson, whose campaign I covered on Saturday, is trailing in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain.

It appears the Liberals could end up with more seats than they had at the dissolution of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, although ballots are still being counted and the numbers will change. That would be a stunning outcome.

In a bit of good news for the NDP, in Vancouver – Point Grey, the New Democratic Party’s David Eby is now ahead of Christy Clark. As of 9:40 PM:

There will likely be pressure on the NDP’s Adrian Dix to step down as NDP leader, at least from some quarters. Dix’s strategy of trying to run a positive campaign and deflect Liberal attacks – instead of aggressively counterattacking – appears to have backfired, and cost the NDP the election.

The NDP wasn’t apparently able to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the Liberal government, despite all of the public opinion research that suggested voters were unhappy with the B.C. Liberals and ready to turn them out.

The results are so at odds with the polling – like in last year’s provincial election in Alberta – that Canadian media are suggesting it will be a watershed moment (and not in a good way) for pollsters and public opinion research firms.

Instead of it being a history-making night for the NDP, it’s turning out to be a great night for the Liberals and a good night for the Green Party, who have apparently managed to elect their very first MLA (Andrew Weaver) to the Assembly in the Oak Bay – Gordon Head riding on Vancouver Island.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are having a pretty bad night as well. They haven’t won any seats or led in any ridings the whole evening.

It appears many of the British Columbians they were wooing decided to support the incumbent Liberals instead of voting Conservative.

The progressive vote, meanwhile, appears to be more split between the NDP and the Green Party. The NDP had repeatedly appealed for progressive voters to vote NDP during the campaign, but many still chose to vote Green.

Some of the ridings that the NDP was thought to stand a very good chance of winning that are currently going Liberal instead include:

• Surrey-Panorama
• Coquitlam-Burke Mountain
• North Vancouver-Lonsdale
• Delta North
• Vancouver – Fairview
• Chilliwack-Hope
• Prince George – Mackenzie
• Cariboo – Chilcotin
• Kamloops – Port Thompson
• Vernon-Monashee
• Port Moody – Coquitlam
• Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows

The Liberals’ platitude-filled rhetoric about creating economic opportunity and exploiting the province’s natural resources, coupled with a sustained effort to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about the NDP into the minds of British Columbia voters, appears to have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

The results once again offer proof that while voters say they don’t like negative campaigning, it is effective. Dix and the NDP allowed themselves to be defined by the B.C. Liberals, especially towards the end of the campaign, and it resulted in an election night catastrophe of huge proportions. Instead of taking power or at least cutting into the Liberal majority, they have lost ground – and the Liberals will return to Victoria with an even bigger caucus than the one they left with.

The Tyee’s final electoral prediction breaks down as follows:

• NDP: Fifty-seven seats
• Liberals: Twenty-seven seats
• Independents: One seat

The Tyee classifies thirty-four seats as “definitely” NDP, with only thirteen “definitely” Liberal. A further twenty-three seats are considered “Likely” NDP and fourteen “Likely” Liberal. The Tyee no longer has any races classified as tossups.

If the NDP does indeed capture fifty-five plus seats tonight, it will be an electoral victory of mammoth proportions, and Adrian Dix will take over as the province’s next premier with a clear mandate to govern.

Eleventh hour polls indicate the NDP remains comfortably ahead of the Liberals, although polls in other recent provincial elections have been less than reliable.

But there’s no evidence that suggests that the Liberals are going to eke out an upset here at the end. They haven’t conceded defeat, but they lack the energy and the momentum that the NDP is clearly enjoying.

They’ve attempted to scare British Columbians into not voting NDP, and that tactic has certainly worked in the past, but this may be the year it fails spectacularly.

The NDP, under Adrian Dix, has remained cool and collected in the face of Liberal attacks for weeks, and is countering television ad campaigns with people power. The NDP is fielding its best slate of candidates in years and has improved its GOTV (get out the vote) operations to compensate for the Liberals’ money advantage.
I saw this firsthand when I visited the Vancouver area over the weekend.

If the NDP wins tonight, the entire Left Coast – stretching from the U.S.-Mexico border to the Alaskan coast – will have Democratic/New Democratic, progressive chief executives in charge. (Oregon and California elected John Kitzhaber and Jerry Brown in 2010, while Washington elected Jay Inslee just last year).

And British Columbia will have a government committed to job training, economic opportunities, protecting the province’s coasts and addressing the climate crisis.

We will have live coverage of the B.C. provincial election here on The Advocate tonight beginning at 8 PM. Check back for instant analysis as the results roll in and we learn who will be the next Premier of British Columbia.

Sunset on Sunday, May 12th, as seen from Tsawwassen in southern British Columbia (Photo: Andrew Villeneuve/NPI)

I hadn’t expected there to be much of a sunset on Sunday, especially considering the low-visibility rainstorms I’d been driving through.

But as dusk approached, I noticed the sky was getting rosier, and that indicated to me that a truly great sunset was getting under way.

Fortunately, I was on a road that allowed me to pull over with no difficulty once the horizon came into clear view, and get the shot you see above.

It’s easily one of my favorite photos of the trip.

At the moment the picture was taken, the sky was filled with some pretty spectacular sunbeams, or crepuscular rays. These only lasted for a few minutes, and I’m very glad I didn’t miss them. They add a lot of warmth to the image.

Any readers who have ever taken a ferry to Swartz Bay/Victoria have probably been through Tsawwassen. It’s part of the Delta South riding, which is currently held by an independent, Vicki Huntington. She’s expected to retain her seat tomorrow.

Premier Christy Clark hasn’t made as many stops, but she is out and about – just not in her own riding.

At 9 AM she paid a visit to Sealand Aviation in Campbell River, then trekked to Abbotsford to promote Darryl Plecas’ candidacy at his campaign office.

A little while later she showed up at Peter Fassbender’s campaign office in fast-growing Surrey to do the same thing.

And this evening, she and the B.C. Liberals are holding a province-wide telephone town hall so that supporters can connect with her and ask (prescreened) questions.

I’ve been listening in to the tele-town hall for around a half hour; it’s just wrapping up. I was kind of hoping to hear Clark articulate some specific policy directions from the platform, but most of what I’ve heard is boilerplate.

Consequently, I haven’t learned much except that Clark and the Liberals really like LNG (liquefied natural gas) and are eager to help big oil companies drill like there’s no tomorrow. Clark even answered a question about education and school funding by pivoting to LNG. (She claimed the development of LNG would allow schools to be amply funded without needing to raise taxes).

The B.C. Liberals’ platform talks about exploiting LNG as if it was a renewable resource that will provide jobs indefinitely. But this isn’t true.

Natural gas does burn more cleanly than coal or oil, but it’s still an exhaustible fossil fuel. Burning it produces emissions and it cannot be extracted without harming the environment – contrary to what the Liberals say in their LNG platform plank:

LNG: Jobs and prosperity

Under our feet lies as much energy as Alberta has in its oil patch. It is in the form of natural gas, a cleaner alternative to oil or coal, in the Northeast corner of British Columbia.

Today, our market for natural gas is in North America, where we only ship it via pipeline.

Tomorrow, our goal is to have a Liquefied Natural Gas industry that will add value to our abundant natural gas resource by shipping it by sea to Asia where it currently sells for over five times the North American price. By realizing this vision we can deliver jobs, opportunity, and a legacy for future generations.

What we are doing about it

LNG facilities are currently proposed by business groups that include some of the world’s biggest energy companies – Shell, Imperial, Chevron, British Gas, Petronas, SK & ES of South Korea, Inpex and the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, to name some of the major players. It’s no fantasy.

The projects means 39,000 jobs to British Columbia during construction with another 75,000 full time jobs once in operation. We can create $1 trillion in economic activity and create the BC Prosperity Fund with $100 billion over 30 years.

An opportunity this good faces lots of global competition. Premier Christy Clark and Today’s BC Liberals have worked diligently to enable LNG as an economic generator for decades to come.

It’s hard to imagine a rosier pitch for LNG. This plank reads like it was written by lobbyists for big oil companies. (And perhaps they did help write it – who knows).

We agree that LNG facilities are no fantasy. And that should be of great concern to all of us here in the Pacific Northwest. If we let oil companies build all the wells, pipelines, and terminals they want, we’ll be sanctioning massive environmental destruction and permitting the release of billions more tons of carbon dioxide and other climate crisis-causing pollutants into the atmosphere.

Is that really the “legacy” we want to leave for future generations?

Our ancestors mined western North America in the 1800s and early 1900s without regard to the cost or consequences. Environmental science wasn’t a science back then. They didn’t know what we know about the environmental ramifications of blowing up mountains or injecting a brew of toxic chemicals into the ground.

Reading the B.C. Liberals’ platform, you’d think they don’t know, either. What century are they living in? They call themselves “Today’s B.C. Liberals”… apparently because they’re too embarrassed to run on their record. No doubt they’d like British Columbians to forget about the scandals of Gordon Campbell’s government (we in America would say administration). But many are determined not to forget.

Clark and her party have spent more time and money campaigning over the last few years than governing, the NDP’s candidates like to say.

Judging by what I’ve seen and heard, plenty of British Columbians share that view and are ready for a change. The NDP has worked hard to capitalize on this sentiment by making “Change for the Better” its official campaign slogan.

Clark, meanwhile, hasn’t done herself any favors. She’s been so ineffective at governing that it was perhaps fitting she spoiled her own ballot by voting for herself instead of the Liberal running to represent her riding. (In British Columbia, a candidate does not have to live in the riding he or she represents – and Clark doesn’t. She lives just outside the border of Vancouver – Point Grey).

Considering how much money Clark’s government has spent campaigning, I was surprised when I joined the call to hear Clark answering questions from a speakerphone. The prescreened callers (many of whom sounded like undecided voters up until they said “You’ve got my vote”) were coming in more clearly than Clark and her facilitator, who interposed lavish praise of Clark in between Clark’s boilerplate-filled answers and questions from callers.

Most of the callers chosen to participate in the tele-town hall were women; it seems Clark and her party feel that they need to shore up their support among women. Recent polling – including a poll released today by AngusReid Public Opinion – shows that women prefer the NDP to the Liberals.

The BC Liberals have not released a campaign schedule for tomorrow but there’s no chance Christy Clark won’t be out and about. The NDP, for its part, has announced a big afternoon rally at the Vancouver Film Studios in the city’s film district. I’ll be at the rally, which will feature NDP leader Adrian Dix and other NDP candidates.

Look for more coverage of the B.C. elections here on The Advocate tomorrow.

One of the party’s best prospects, civil rights activist David Eby, is running in Vancouver – Point Grey, a riding that encompasses the University of British Columbia and is represented by Christy Clark… the premier of the province.

Prior to 2011, Vancouver – Point Grey was represented by Gordon Campbell, the province’s former premier, who now holds the plum post of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

(The High Commissioner heads Canada’s diplomatic mission to Britain).

Campbell won the riding in four consecutive elections, but except for in 2001, his margin of victory was never that great. In 2011, the NDP realized that the riding was ripe for the taking when Eby came up short against Campbell’s successor (and now Premier) Christy Clark by only five hundred and sixty-four votes.

Eby decided in December 2012 to seek a rematch, and is now running against Clark for a second time, having been enthusiastically nominated by the NDP. He’s widely considered one of their rising stars. The Tyee considers him the favorite to win on Tuesday, given his energy-infused candidacy and Clark’s growing unpopularity.

Tyee call: Likely BC New Democratic Party. Premier Christy Clark is running against prominent Vancouver civil rights advocate and lawyer David Eby. It’s going to be a tight race, but with Clark’s approval ratings tanking, it’s looking like Eby will eke out a win.

As Election Day approaches, he and his team are working hard to get out the vote and turn the riding orange. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer‘s Joel Connelly and I stopped by his bustling office on West Broadway in the Kitsilano neighborhood (known to locals as “Kits”) to get a sense of how his campaign is going.

David Eby’s campaign office in Kitsilano. A big, colorful blue and orange sign out front makes it plainly clear that this is the NDP’s home base in the area. (Photo: Andrew Villeneuve/NPI)

Eby, the former director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, is an impressive and charismatic candidate with a calm and cheery demeanor. He currently serves as an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia and has been recognized by human rights groups for his contributions to the cause. He is also the President of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Eby believes in people-powered politics; he has spent a lot of time knocking on doors and calling voters (which is what a good candidate does).

His supporters are taking advantage of decent weather this afternoon to go out canvassing throughout the riding in team, carrying clipboards and stacks of Vote NDP/Eby flyers. Among them are University of Saskatoon students Mitch & Mitch, who’ve come all the way from Saskatchewan to help the Eby campaign.

David Eby speaks with supporters preparing to go canvassing in the province’s best-educated riding (Photo: Andrew Villeneuve/NPI)

Eby’s 2013 campaign has been drawing attention. He’s been profiled by the Globe & Mail, Canada’s newspaper of record, and MetroNews.

Environmental protection is one of the values at the heart of Eby’s campaign. In an interview, he explained why he’s not afraid of having a strong, principled position opposing an increase in fossil fuel exports – unlike his opponent, Christy Clark.

“It gives me a couple of advantages,” he said. “One is, it makes it very easy to talk about the issue with people. They understand where we stand.”

“And the second is, it makes it easier for people who hear that position to make a decision on how to vote. If they think that Vancouver should be a major oil export port and there should be four hundred tankers every year passing their front door, then they should vote Liberal. And if they don’t think that, they should vote NDP.”

He also asserted that the next government shouldn’t be oriented towards developing a twentieth-century energy sector.

“If you look at the Liberal campaign platform, you’d think that the only way that we could grow our economy is through natural gas… that everything else is destined to not work out.” Citing the film and tourism industries, he added, “I think we’re more than just a province that mines or moves resources around.”

He described the rematch against Clark “really weird”, explaining that Clark hasn’t shown up to all-candidates meetings or community events and hasn’t been visible until very recently. “It’s like campaigning against a ghost,” he said.

“For the first half of the campaign, during the writ period, they didn’t even drop a flyer in the riding… More recently they’ve dropped a couple now. But it was so strange. There were hardly any signs for the longest time.”

Clark has supporters running phone banks, but there is scant evidence that she’s making an effort to personally connect with her own constituents, Eby added.

“I think that people recognize that she doesn’t live here, in the riding, that she hasn’t come to the meetings, that she hasn’t been in the community.”

“I would say she’s abandoned the riding, but she would have had to have been here in the first place to have abandoned it,” he concluded.

Six other candidates are also challenging Clark in the 2013 election: Independent William Gibbens, Hollis Linschoten of the “Work Less Party”, Conservative Duane Nickull, Libertarian Marisa Palmer, Green Francoise Raunet and Bernard Yankson of the “Platinum Party”. Each is sure to draw votes, but the race is principally between Eby and Clark, with Eby standing a good chance of defeating Clark.

As we announced earlier this week, I am visiting our northern neighbors this weekend to cover the 2013 British Columbia provincial elections, which will conclude this Tuesday, May 14th. Whichever party wins will most likely form B.C.’s next government and run the province for the next few years… so the outcome has important ramifications both here and for us in the United States.

That’s why I’m here.

Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve tried to immerse myself in British Columbia politics (well, at least to the extent I could without being there).

Though Washington and Idaho share a border with B.C., and though B.C. shares an ecoregion with us, its politics are in many ways more similar to the United Kingdom’s than ours, owing to the province’s British heritage. (There’s a reason it’s called British Columbia!)

In B.C., the two major political parties are the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. New Democratic Party, or BCNDP for short. The Liberals, despite their name, are actually the province’s major conservative party; the NDP is the province’s progressive political party. (Up here, the words liberal and progressive would not be equated as referring to the same worldview and values system as in the United States).

The B.C. NDP is affiliated with the Canadian federal NDP (which became the opposition party in Ottawa for the first time in the last election) but the B.C. Liberals have no formal affiliation with the national Liberal Party, now led by the young and charismatic Justin Trudeau. As this is a provincial election, the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP are squarely focused on regional and local issues; with national issues being viewed through a West Coast lens.

There is a Conservative Party up here, by the way, but it holds no seats in the B.C. Legislative Assembly and is influential only to the extent that it can be a spoiler in a close election, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party here in the United States. And speaking of the Green Party, British Columbia has a Green Party too – but it shares a status similar to that of the Conservative Party.

British Columbia, like Canada and other Commonwealth realms, is a parliamentary democracy organized according to the Westminster system. That means the head of government (called the Premier in British Columbia) plus his or her ministers come from the legislative assembly. When voters empower one party to govern as the majority party, that party forms the government that runs the province.

Sometimes, the electorate is so split that no one party wins a majority of seats in an election. When this happens, a coalition government of two or more parties usually forms, and governs jointly through a power-sharing agreement.

At present, with the exception of two independents, only members of the B.C. Liberals and B.C. NDP hold seats in the Legislative Assembly in Victoria, and that is not expected to change on Tuesday when the election concludes.

This election is thus primarily a contest between the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP. The Liberals are currently the majority party in the Assembly, and the NDP is the opposition party. The NDP, led by Adrian Dix, is campaigning hard to turn out the Liberals, led by Christy Clark. Clark presently serves as Premier; if her party is defeated on Tuesday, Dix will become the next Premier.

In Canada and in British Columbia, political parties truly run what we in Washington State would call a “coordinated” campaign. The parties provide all sorts of support and logistics for their candidates – including web hosting, as you can see from browsing around the B.C. NDP’s clean and elegant website.

Because the premiership usually goes to the MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) who serves as the leader of the majority party, the party leaders are very much the public faces of their respective parties. Their photos are everywhere.

The premiership is a fairly powerful position. Think of it as equivalent to Jay Inslee and Frank Chopp’s positions in Washington State (governor and speaker).

The person serving as premier is essentially the executive of the province, but is indirectly elected, unlike Jay Inslee, Butch Otter, or John Kitzhaber.

A B.C. voter wanting to see Adrian Dix as the next premier can’t actually vote for Dix unless he or she lives in Dix’s riding (riding is Canadian for district). Dix’s chances of becoming premier thus rest on the success of the NDP as a whole in the provincial elections, just as Christy Clark’s fate is tied to that of the B.C. Liberals.

(Clark’s own riding, incidentally, is hotly contested – the NDP has a credible candidate running against her and he could be victorious on Tuesday).

As this is the last Saturday and Sunday before the polls close on Tuesday, it’s GOTV weekend up here in British Columbia, and all of the parties are working to turn out their supporters. Early voting (or advance polls) began here last Wednesday, and continues this weekend in all of the province’s eighty-five ridings.

This morning, B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix is campaigning with MLA hopeful Chris Wilson in the Coquitlam-Burke Mountain riding, which is one of fifteen to twenty swing ridings. The NDP is hosting a pancake breakfast at Wilson’s campaign office just off Highway 7; Dix is expected to address supporters and the press when he arrives in his campaign bus. That’s what I’m here in Coquitlam to cover. It promises to be a good time; I’ll be posting a writeup (with pictures!) after it’s over.

Stay tuned for more perspective and reporting on the B.C. provincial elections.

The bill, H. 3101, seeks to:

… render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty; to prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.

The prime sponsor of the bill is Republican Bill Chumley. Chumley is either not aware that by attempting to nullify federal law, he is violating the oath of office he swore or affirmed when he became a lawmaker, or he is aware and simply doesn’t care.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that federal law trumps state law and states have no authority to nullify federal laws. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958) the Court unequivocally affirmed that the federal judiciary alone has the power to interpret federal laws and decide their constitutionality. For state officials to assume such power would be a violation of their oaths:

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: ‘If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.

A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, ‘it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases’.

The Supreme Court has found the Patient Protection Act to be constitutional. This decision is binding on South Carolina and its elected officials, including Bill Chumley and his colleagues – whether they like it or not. Thus, ironically, H. 3101 – which attempts to make the Patient Protection Act unenforceable – is itself unenforceable.

Chumley is free to dislike and disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

But as an elected leader who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, he must respect the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Similarly, those of us who fervently disagree with the Supreme Court’s Corporations United ruling have to respect that decision, even though we may not like it. We are, of course, at liberty to propose and discuss changing the U.S. Constitution to overturn the decision, and that is what the Move to Amend effort is all about.

As of just before 5:45 PM Pacific, with around one-fourth of precincts reporting, U.S. Representative Ed Markey and former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez led their respective challengers for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Each had been considered his party’s frontrunner, so these results aren’t too surprising.

Here are the numbers:

MA-Senate – Democratic Special Primary
April 30, 2013 – Results as of 05:41PM Pacific
56 of 2172 Precincts Reporting – 26%

Ed Markey: 58% (74,623 votes)
Stephen Lynch: 42% (53,766 votes)

MA-Senate – Republican Special Primary
April 30th, 2013 – Results as of 05:42PM Pacific
538 of 2172 Precincts Reporting – 25%

Gabriel Gomez: 52% (26,782 votes)
Mike Sullivan: 35% (18,056 votes)
Dan Winslow: 13% (6,652 votes)

Results are coming in at a steady pace, so it’s likely these numbers will be outdated by the time many NPI Advocate readers see this post.

However, it’s always nice to have a snapshot.

Ed Markey’s lead stood at 61% earlier when fewer votes had been tallied and reported. It has since shrunk, but not by that much. Gomez has been in the low fifties for a while. His closest challenger is Mike Sullivan, but he’s pulling in enough votes that third-place finisher Dan Winslow can’t be called a spoiler.

Democrats Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch, as many readers may know, are both members of Massachusetts’ U.S. House delegation. Markey is considered to be more progressive and has a stronger voting record, according to ProgressivePunch.

The Boston Globe reported that turnout for this election was fairly low, with polling places not seeing much activity. Election fatigue may be party to blame – last year’s elections dominated airwaves and mailboxes for a pretty long time.

UPDATE, 6:20 PM: The Associated Press and major news outlets are projecting that Markey and Gomez are the winners of their respective primaries. With more than 70% of ballots now counted, it’s evident that their opponents aren’t going to close the gap. It will be Markey vs. Gomez from now until June 25th.

In a short statement issued a little bit ago, the National Basketball Association revealed that its Relocation Committee has unanimously voted to recommend rejection of the Kings’ application to move to Seattle.

(The Kings are currently owned by the Maloofs, who struck an agreement to sell the team to a group led by Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer back in January).

The NBA’s full Board of Governors (consisting of the league’s existing owners) will meet on May 13th to consider the matter. The board is expected to adopt the Relocation Committee’s recommendation.

The rejection of the application does not mean that the Maloofs have to sell to the ownership group organized by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

However, if they want to sell the franchise and cash out, they don’t appear to have any other options at this point.

The decision is a defeat for the Maloofs (who tried to sell the team to an ownership group that wanted to move it away out of spite) and for Chris Hansen, whose ambition collided with the determination and persistence of the denizens of Sacramento, led by Mayor Kevin Johnson, himself a former NBA player.

Johnson lauded the recommendation with a series of tweets congratulating Sacramento and applauding the enthusiasm of fans in Seattle:

That’s what I’m talking about SACRAMENTO!!!!! WE DID IT!!!!!

— Kevin Johnson (@KJ_MayorJohnson) April 29, 2013

I’ve never been prouder of this city. I thank the ownership group, city leaders, but most of all the BEST FANS IN THE NBA!!!

— Kevin Johnson (@KJ_MayorJohnson) April 29, 2013

I want to take my hat off to Seattle. You’re a great city,had a great proposal, unbelievable fans & no doubt deserve a team in the future.

— Kevin Johnson (@KJ_MayorJohnson) April 29, 2013

5:00PM @firestonepublic! Be there!

— Kevin Johnson (@KJ_MayorJohnson) April 29, 2013

Kings fans reacted on Sactown Royalty, a leading Sacramento Kings fan blog, with jubilation and contempt for the Maloofs. (And that might be an understatement).

“The second I saw the news go up on Twitter, I started bawling all over my computer,” one fan wrote. “A glorious moment and I’d just like to wave as the Maloofs walk away and contemplate how they failed at failing a city.”

“If anything, in the end, I thank Hansen for taking the Maloofs out of our lives,” said another, contemplating the victory. “In reality, without him, we wouldn’t be where we are today, feeling the way we do today.”

A few self-professed Sonics fans joined in the celebration as well.

“I couldn’t be more thrilled for Sacramento Kings fans,” a fan styling him or her self as UniversalGuru wrote. “You are a testament to true fandom and an example of what every fanbase should strive to achieve.”

“I hope that Kings fans will support Seattle in their effort to rejoin the NBA (hopefully through expansion),” UniversalGuru added.

“Congratulations are not enough to describe how you must feel. I know, because it’s the antithesis of what we went through in 2008. I know that I’ll be rooting for you during the 2013-2014 season.”

That last comment sums up our sentiments.

We at NPI would like to see men’s professional basketball return to Seattle, but only through an expansion franchise. That’s why we’re very glad that Sacramento has succeeded in its efforts to keep the Kings. All of our other pro teams (Mariners, Storm, Sounders, Seahawks) truly can be called hometown teams, because they started play in Seattle and have always belonged to Seattle.

Had Chris Hansen succeeded in his efforts to take Sacramento’s team and bring it here, it would not have meant the return of the SuperSonics. It would have meant the transformation of the Sacramento Kings into the Seattle Kings. It would have meant that Seattle would have stolen another city’s team, just as the Sonics were taken from Seattle five years ago by Clay Bennett and his henchmen.

The NBA would now be wise to award Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer an expansion franchise. In Hansen and Ballmer and the Nordstroms, the league has an enthusiastic ownership group who are passionate about bringing the NBA back to Seattle and have forged a partnership with Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and King County Executive Dow Constantine to make it happen.

McGinn and Constantine both depicted their resolve and enthusiasm as unchanged despite the NBA’s recommendation against the relocation.

“I’m proud of how Sonics fans have rallied together to help Seattle get a team,” McGinn said. “We’re going to stay focused on our job: making sure Seattle remains in a position to get a team when the opportunity presents itself.”

Constantine agreed.

“I’m disappointed, but undeterred in our quest to bring NBA basketball back to the Pacific Northwest. Today’s decision doesn’t mean this effort is over. From what I saw at the presentation in New York, Chris Hansen and his team have made the superior offer and the best pure business case for the NBA to return to Seattle.”

“We have a documented fan and business base ready to step forward when the time comes. We are patient, but determined. I look forward to continuing our work with the Hansen group to return NBA basketball to the major media market and loyal fans of Seattle, King County, and Washington State.”

Inslee made his announcement less than an hour after the 2013 regular session of the Legislature adjourned sine die without a budget or approval by the Senate of several key bills the Governor had asked the Legislature to send to his desk.

Among those bills Inslee would like to see advance in the special session are the Reproductive Parity Act and the DREAM Act, which did not come up for a vote in the Senate because Rodney Tom allowed his caucus’ most extreme members to prevail in blocking the legislation from getting to the floor.

Inslee also wants to finish developing legislation to strengthen the state’s DUI laws. Representative Roger Goodman, who represents NPI’s home legislative district, has been at the forefront of that effort, which began late in the session.

Inslee told reporters that negotiations over the budget will continue during the two week break in between the end of the regular session and the special session he has called. However, the two sides remain far apart, and we doubt there will be a compromise ready for lawmakers to vote on when they return on May 13th.

The text of Inslee’s special session proclamation is as follows:

WHEREAS, in accordance with Article II, Section 12 (Amendment 68) of the Washington State Constitution, the Legislature adjourned its 2013 regular session on April 28, 2013, the 105th day of the session; and

WHEREAS, work remains to be done with respect to the 2013-2015 biennial operating and capital budgets and bills necessary to implement those budgets; and

WHEREAS, work remains to be done with respect to the 2013-2015 biennial transportation budget and bills necessary to implement that budget; and

WHEREAS, work remains to be done with respect to critical policy bills that need to be acted upon by the Legislature; and

WHEREAS, the Speaker of the House [Frank Chopp], House Minority Leader [Dan Kristiansen], Senate Majority Coalition Caucus Leader [Rodney Tom], Senate Democratic Leader [Ed Murray], and Senate Republican Leader [Mark Schoesler] working together with the Governor may agree upon additional matters that are necessary for the Legislature to address;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of Washington, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Article II, Section 12 (Amendment 68) and Article III, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, do hereby convene the Washington State Legislature in Special Session in the Capitol at Olympia on Monday, May 13, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. for the purpose of enacting legislation as described above.

Signed and sealed with the official seal of the state of Washington this 28th day of April, A.D. Two-thousand and Thirteen at Olympia, WA.

The Constitution provides that a special session may last up to thirty days. The governor has the power to call a special session, but he cannot end one. If the Legislature cannot reach agreement on a budget by the end of the first special session, a second special session may have to be called in June.

Although the tragedy occurred in Federal Way and authorities there are handling the investigation, several national and international media outlets are incorrectly characterizing the event as a “Seattle shooting” or a shooting in Seattle, implying that it happened in our region’s biggest city. In fact, the Federal Way city limits are some twenty miles south of the heart of Seattle, and driving from one city hall to another takes twenty-five minutes… in good traffic.

A quick check of stories pertaining to the tragedy on Bing News revealed some headlines that are misleading and could have been better written.

Let’s compare a few:

• Five dead after shooting at apartment in Seattle suburb: This is a Chicago Tribune headline. Wins points for accuracy and brevity.
• Seattle Shooting: Five Killed at Apartment Complex in Washington Near Seattle, One Suspect Dead: The tragedy did not happen in Seattle, so the first two words shouldn’t be there. In addition to being misleading, those two words unnecessarily increase the length of this Mstars headline.
• 5 Dead After Seattle-Area Shooting: This is from U.S. News and World Report. It’s certainly short but it could be more concise.
• Seattle apartment shootings leave five dead: This one’s from the BBC, and they should know better. The tragedy did not happen in Seattle. If “Seattle” is going to appear in the headline, there needs to be a qualifier, as there is in the Tribune and U.S. News headlines.
• Police: 5 killed in shooting south of Seattle: This is an Oregonian headline on an Associated Press story. It’s short enough and there’s a qualifier, but it’s not as good as the Chicago Tribune headline. There are a lot of places south of Seattle. The word suburb implies a city or town that is close to a bigger city, which is what Federal Way is.

Our own local media, of course, don’t need to say “Seattle area”. We here in Washington know where Federal Way is.

• Police say 1 of the dead in Federal Way had killed 4 others (Seattle Times)
• Five dead in shooting at Federal Way apartment complex (KING5)
• Police say man shot by Federal Way officers responsible for slaying of 4/Gunfight ends in bloodbath in Federal Way (KIRO 7)
• Police: Domestic dispute led to rampage that left 5 dead (KOMO 4)

There are a lot of details about this tragedy we still don’t know. We do know that the man killed by police last night – who is suspected of killing the others – had a license to carry a concealed weapon. And he was abusive: Law enforcement knew this guy, because he’d been violent before. Unfortunately, he was armed last night, and he did terrible damage with his weapons.

We at NPI extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in this senseless act of violence. Another mass shooting has resulted in more death and destruction. We’re left to wonder: When is enough enough? When are we going to put human rights ahead of “gun rights”?

Ostensibly, CISPA is intended to help bolster Internet security in the United States and make it easier for the U.S. government and major corporations to share information about cyber threats. In reality, CISPA is a threat to our digital freedom and civil liberties, and gives the government more spying powers.

CISPA did not make it out of the U.S. Senate after passing the House last year, which is why it was reintroduced in the House this year. The 2013 incarnation of the bill has followed a similar trajectory to the 2012 incarnation. It was shepherded through committee by Mike Rogers, amended slightly, and then approved on the House floor despite a veto threat from the White House.

The vote for and against the bill was bipartisan, but most no votes came from Democrats and most yes votes came from Republicans.

The roll call for the Pacific Northwest was as follows:

Voting Aye: Democrats Adam Smith, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Denny Heck (WA), Kurt Schrader (OR); Republicans Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Dave Reichert (WA), Greg Walden (OR), Mike Simpson (ID), Don Young (AK), Steve Daines (MT)

Voting Nay: Democrats Suzan DelBene, Jim McDermott (WA), Suzanne Bonamici, Pete DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer (OR); Republicans Jaime Herrera-Beutler (WA) and Raúl Labrador (ID)

Two days ago, we asked our region’s U.S. Representatives to vote against this latest incarnation of CISPA. Most did not, but we are very grateful to those who did, particularly Suzan DelBene, who represents NPI’s home district.

DelBene said in a statement sent to NPI shortly after the vote that CISPA 2013 was simply too flawed to earn her support.

“While I support the goals of this legislation, the CISPA bill voted on by the House today unfortunately does not offer necessary protections to safeguard Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights,” she said.

“I commend the good faith, bipartisan effort by my colleagues to draft effective legislation, but today’s bill still falls short. While the bill voted on today is an improvement from last year’s version, it ultimately fails to adequately protect civil liberties. It grants immunity to corporations that don’t protect the personal information of customers that they freely share with the federal government.”

“This bill doesn’t do enough to prevent personally identifiable information or the private communications of individuals from being collected by federal agencies. This is inconsistent with our nation’s values regarding individual privacy.”

We strongly concur and we thank Representatives DelBene as well as Representative McDermott for casting an informed and courageous vote. We also extend our thanks to Republicans Jaime Herrera Beutler and Raúl Labrador for their no votes. They were the only Republicans from our region to vote no.

Three of Oregon’s four Democrats also voted no.

We are very disappointed in our region’s other Democrats for their aye votes. CISPA is fatally flawed legislation that lacks robust privacy and civil liberties safeguards. It is not well drafted. That is why we are strongly opposed to it and it is why President Obama has threatened a veto, both last year and this year.

Adam Smith, Rick Larsen, Denny Heck, and Derek Kilmer should have followed the lead of Representatives DelBene and McDermott and voted no on CISPA 2013.

We will be in contact with each of them to express our disappointment in their votes over the next few days. We now urge our region’s U.S. Senators, especially Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, and Jeff Merkley, to put a stop to CISPA in the U.S. Senate so this poorly written legislation never gets out of Congress.

By a vote of fifty-four to forty-six (with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voting nay so that he has the ability to bring up the legislation again later) the Senate nixed the amendment carefully crafted by Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania to strengthen background checks, an idea that public opinion research suggests around 90% of the American people support.

Senators from the Pacific Northwest were evenly split on the amendment. The roll call from our region was as follows:

Voting Aye: Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell (WA), Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (OR), Jon Tester (MT)

Voting Nay: Democrats Mark Begich (AK) and Max Baucus (MT); Republicans Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (ID), Lisa Murkowski (AK)

Begich and Baucus were two of the four Democrats who voted against the amendment. The other two Democrats were Mark Pryor of Arkansas and the recently elected Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

As mentioned, Harry Reid also voted against the amendment after he knew what the outcome would be, so that he has the ability to bring it back to the Senate floor at a later point in time. (Reid supports background checks and would have voted aye if there had been fifty-nine other aye votes).

Several Republicans joined with the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus in support of the amendment. They were Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, and surprisingly, John McCain of Arizona.

McCain’s Arizona seatmate Jeff Flake, who the White House and activists had previously hoped might vote in favor of the amendment, voted nay after announcing he would join the Republican filibuster last night.

Our friends at the PCCC are launching an ad campaign against the four Democratic senators who failed the people of the United States of America by joining in the Republican filibuster to block the Manchin/Toomey proposal from moving forward.

We at NPI are particularly disappointed in Senators Begich and Baucus for standing with the National Rifle Association (NRA) instead of the vast majority of Americans, including responsible gun owners, who support closing the background check loophole so that criminals can’t avoid scrutiny by buying firearms at gun shows or over the Internet. They had an opportunity to demonstrate political courage and they squandered that opportunity. Shame on them.