Meanwhile, here at home...

…my 2011 general election ballot has arrived, reminding me that I've been spending too much time obsessed with next year when there's an election right in front of my face. Beyond a trio of initiatives and a pair of amendments to the state constitution, the races on my ballot are municipal, ranging from county-wide offices to local special districts, but the affect of the choices made can affect the lives of the voters more rapidly and directly than the outcome of next year's higher profile campaigns.

It's no secret that I consider the initiative process corrupted beyond correction, so my default bias is 'no' on each and every one. On the other hand, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and I like to think my my mind is one of generous proportions, so this year I'll be voting for one of the three, I-1163, the SEIU backed proposal to provide background checks and training standards for long-term care workers and providers. The fact that we're voting on this is to some degree an indictment of the legislature, which should have provided these basic protections to some of our most vulnerable citizens in the normal course of business. They didn't, though, and the question remains "Should this measure be enacted into law?" The answer is yes.

Initiative 1125 is this year's offering from one of the initiative process' principal corrupters, Tim Eyman, which is all most right, erm, proper-thinking people need to know to join me in voting no. It's a typical effort to undermine the legislature's budget authority and responsibility combined with and effort to restrict infrastructure revenues that annoy Eyman's wealthy clients. No, no, as many votes as you have in your household NO!

Another example of the corruption that's turned our initiative process into a circus mirror reflection of its original progressive intent can be found with I-1183, this year's liquor privatization initiative. While I'm a supporter of privatizing the distribution and sale of liquor and getting rid of our East German style state retail outlets, I-1183 isn't the way to do it. Costco and the major grocery chains have self-financed a proposal that grants them sort of joint monopoly on retail sales of spirits. The campaign's on each side, funded by industry rivals, are both dishonest and distracting. It's not really a question of where liquor should be sold, or who to, or for how much. It's about whether corporations should be able to buy their own laws via the initiative process. They shouldn't. Vote no.

There are also a pair of constitutional amendments submitted by the legislature, one essentially housekeeping and one to strengthen the state's "rainy day" fund. I'm voting approve both of them.

Candidate races coming up...

Everything you need to know…

…about why it's time to dump the initiative process in Washington, from initiative profiteer Tim Eyman…

Pam (Roach, R-Auburn) and Don (Benton, R-Vancouver) are, by far, the greatest champions and defenders of the initiative process in the Legislature…

They're launching a full scale attack on a SB 5297, a modest initiative reform bill, but with friends like that, it's obviously time to take away their toy altogether.

If we can't get rid of 'em…

…at least we can get control of 'em. It's my conviction that whatever value the initiative process had as a populist reform has been lost in the era of full time initiative shops and paid signature gatherers. The impulse behind modern initiatives is often more profit than populism.

Repeal of the process would require an amendment to the state constitution and would involve a risky and expensive election if it could clear the legislative barriers to the ballot in the first place. The best immediate path forward isn't repeal, but reform through regulation. This sounds like a good start...

State Sen. Sharon Nelson, D-West Seattle, is sponsoring a bill this session that would place new requirements on the ballot-initiative process aimed at reducing the chances of fraud in paid signature-gathering.

Some highlights of the Senate Bill 5297 include:

· Paid signature gatherers would need to register with the Secretary of State; failure to register would incur a fine.
· Those convicted of fraud, forgery or ID theft would be prohibited from gathering signatures in Washington for five years.
· The initiative filing fee would increase from the current $5 to $500, with a $450 refund if the measure qualifies for the ballot. The $500 fee would be waived if the initiative was filed with 1,000 valid signatures.
· The affidavit on the back of petitions must be signed by the signature gatherer, attesting that the signatures were collected in accordance with state law. If not, the initiative sponsor would have to pay the cost of checking the validity of every signature.

Tim Eyman, predictably, hates SB 5297. That might be the best reason to support it.

A cunning plan…

…from artistdogboy.

I also think we should find if Tim Eyman attends church and then send all the people who are going to fall through the cracks over there so the congregation he belongs to can take care of them...

Me too.

Also.

It's been hard to resist…

…abandoning my general dislike for what the initiative system has become. Taxing the rich, legal pot and Costco vodka all have their appeal. Still, if that's what the people want, there's nothing in any of them that couldn't be accomplished by a more courageous and representative legislature, and an engaged electorate pressuring them to do the people's business as the people see fit. It's called "representative democracy" and I'm old-fashioned enough to think it's worth a try.

It's kind of reassuring, then, to see big oil lining up behind Tim Eyman's latest tax craziness. The Big Oil Initiative (that's what we're going to call it, right?) should be a big enough target for my hostility that even if I can't bring myself to wave the flag for the apparently good guys, I can leave 'em mostly alone.

Report from Olympia…

…via Steve Zemke, who was down testifying on behalf of initiative reform when...

...in Senator Roach's opinion I had impugned the motives of Tim Eyman by noting that he ballot title shopped his initiatives. She started ranting that I should cease testifying and be removed from the hearing. Senator Darlene Fairley, the Chair of the Committee basically ignored her and allowed the Hearing to continue.

That's my own personal State Senator ignoring Pam Roach's tantrum. Kudos from this constituent!

And what's up with that tantrum, anyway? Even if Steve had conquered the Herculean challenge of impugning Eyman's motives, how does that justify denying a citizen his Constitutional right to petition his government? That's what testifying before the Legislature, is, after all, in one of it's purest and most direct manifestations.

Reminds me of this from Hollywood Jane's new boyfriend...

"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," Grover Norquist has told the Denver Post. "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals – and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."

I guess Pammy's on the team.

On the statewide side…

…the results range from excellent to encouraging. Tim Eyman's I-1033 didn't lose everywhere, but it lost pretty much everywhere the people are, whether the people in question are Puget Sound liberals or Palouse wheat farmers. Folks who grow hops and grapes seem to be pretty much over Eyman, as well. Here's the map. The good guys (No voters) are in yellow...


Things are a bit dicier for R-71, and the geographic spread is a lot smaller. Seems like those wheat farmers don't like gay folks any more than they like Tim Eyman. The measure is clinging to about a 2 point lead right now, but the geographic concentration of the Yes vote is a source of encouragement, since the largest portion of outstanding votes comes from the good guy region, this time in green…

Most of the commentary I've seen seems to expect the final count to widen the margin of victory and provide a measure of increased protection for domestic partnerships. I think so too, but I'd sure like to see another big drop from King County before I pop the corks for this one.

Eyman's new initiative?

Andrew tells you everything you need to know...

Initiative 985 is guaranteed to make everyone's commute worse. Yours, mine, John Doe's, and Jane Q. Public's.

Keep track. Fight back.