Washblog - Diaries

All of Washington state is moving towards equality

Lurleen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:17:59 PST

Washington voters have accomplished a national first by ratifying a new law that makes state registered domestic partnerships fully parallel to civil marriage. �The provisional election result for Referendum 71 is currently 52.6% to 47.4%. �This story is huge and is already getting some well-deserved attention. �And remember, we won by a comfortable margin in an off-year election when the likely voter pool is dominated by older, more conservative voters. �We know support for domestic partnerships is much higher in the general electorate.

Much is being made of the geographic clustering of counties where the majority of voters have approved R-71 (right, in green). �Vote results are dismissed by some folk with a "well of course Puget Sound counties...". �It is true that election results do rather neatly support the stereotype of Washington's east-west divide. �But putting the R-71 results in historical context reveals a deeper story: almost every Washington county shows an increase in pro-equality voting.

The last time Washington voters had the opportunity to ratify a pro-equality law at the polls was in 1997. �Initiative to the People 677 proposed an employment non-discrimination law. �The ballot title read Shall discrimination based on sexual orientation be prohibited in employment, employment agency, and union membership practices, without requiring employee partner benefits or preferential treatment?. �

The measure was rejected 59.7% to 40.3%. �Contrary to the current image of the Puget Sound area of Washington as progressive, not one single county - not even Seattle's home of King County - voted to approve I-677. �Contrast that with the current election where the electorate as a whole approved R-71 and majorities in 10 of Washington's 39 counties have approved R-71. �But the truly stunning statistic is that the rate of ballot measure approval increased between 1997 and 2009 in all but one county.

Another mark of progress is the fact that voters in 21 counties approved R-71 by over 40%. �Forty percent was the average statewide approval rate for I-677 in 1997. �Those 21 counties are: Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Whatcom, Whitman.

As you consider the graph, realize that in contrast to R-71, I-677 was rather narrow in scope. �It dealt only with the employment discrimination of individuals. �Voting yes on I-677 didn't ask voters to contemplate the meaning of family; didn't ask voters to recognize the existence of gay and lesbian parents; didn't ask voters to find the fiction in school-focused scare tactics. �In other words, not only have Washington voters moved towards equality in virtually every county, they've shown by their R-71 vote that they're open to supporting equality much more comprehensively in the law. �This is big.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

On Projecting R-71's Outcome, Or, We Visit A Political Party

fake consultant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:40:17 PST

Over the past few days we have been talking about Washington State’s Referendum 71, which was voted on this week. If passed, the Referendum will codify in law certain protections for same-sex couples.

In the first story of our three-part series we discussed Washington’s unusual vote-by-mail system; in the second we examined the pre-election polling.

Today we talk about what happened Election Night at the R-71 event and where the vote count stands today...and where it might end up when we’re all done.

We have lots of geeky electoral analysis ahead—and as a special bonus, we have video of the event, including an exclusive interview with Charlene Strong, the woman who became one of the icons of the pro-71 campaign.

It’s a lot to cover, so we better get right to it.

The Big “Catch-Up”

If you are new to this story, we’ll give you a real quick “catch-up”:

On Tuesday’s ballot Washington voters were asked to consider Referendum 71, which is going to decide whether E2SSB 5688 (passed by the Legislature and “[e]xpanding the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners”) shall be allowed to go into effect. (E2SSB, by the way, stands for "Engrossed Second Senate Substitute Bill".)

Voting to approve means the bill will go into law, voting to reject will prevent the bill from having any force or effect under law.

Washington State votes almost entirely by mail, and all ballots postmarked by midnight, November 3rd will be counted. Since lots of voters put their ballots in the mail on November 3rd (myself included), that means, when things are close, that the outcome of any particular question might not be known on Election Day.

About 2/3 of Washington’s population of 6.8 million is concentrated in the Western portion of the State; 3.5 million of those residents live in just three counties: King, Pierce, and Snohomish (Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett being the largest cities in those counties). 25% of the State’s population (1.9 million) resides in King County.

Clark County, which is immediately adjacent to Portland, Oregon (largest city: Vancouver), is slightly smaller in population than Eastern Washington’s largest county, Spokane, which has a population of roughly 450,000.

As it happens, the voting on R-71 is rather close, which is consistent with the pre-election polling...which means at this point you’re pretty well caught up and we’re ready to move on to new business.

The morning sun rose above the Cascades and reflected its dusky orange glow off the bottom of the thin clouds Wednesday morning, enveloping those who were awake with a blanket of soothing daylight.

The night before, however, supporters of same-sex marriage had gathered, in their goat leggings and leather, to engage in a horrifying bacchanal involving the setting of bonfires, the invocation of incantations, and the sacrifices of---

Well, actually, none of that ever happened...but it sounded like a lot of fun, didn’t it?

What Actually Happened

Instead, a crowd of roughly 250 gathered at Seattle’s Pravda Studios to wait for the results. The event was quite upbeat before results were announced, and that mood was reinforced when it was announced that seven Western Washington counties, including King County, were voting to approve the Referendum.

I was lucky enough to get some insight as to how that happened when I interviewed Charlene Strong, who tragically lost her partner three years ago. Her face and her story have figured prominently in this campaign—but as she pointed out to me, the seeds of whatever happens in this election were planted years ago:

...”...the citizens of Washington State...put a Governor in place that is all about equality and a Legislative team that is all about equality and I feel very proud tonight to be a citizen of Washington State, and I’m sure I’ll be feeling that way for quite some days to come...”

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

And with the stage having been set, let’s get geeky:

Washington’s Secretary of State keeps track of statewide ballot measures (including verifying the petition signatures), and it is on their site where we will find statewide results. At the moment (the moment being 6:24 PM, November 4th) 593,956 voters have voted to approve and 556,090 voted to reject, which means R-71 is leading 51.65-48.35%.

Ballots representing almost 33% of the State’s voters have been counted so far, and it is estimated that 394,482 ballots are on hand, around the State, waiting to be counted.

Here’s how the five largest counties are shaping up:

King County Elections reports that R-71 is passing by a 66-33% margin (202,125 to 101,403), with a total of 438,557 votes having been received so far from the County’s 1,079,842 registered voters. These numbers tell us that 135,029 votes are currently on hand, waiting to be counted. (63,446 votes came in today.)

It is likely that 90,000 of those uncounted votes are going to be “approved” votes, based on current trends. If a similar number of votes came in tomorrow, roughly 40,000 more votes would be “approve votes”, suggesting as many as 130,000 more “approved” votes could be waiting to be tallied up.

(Based on these numbers, we already know that King County will exceed the 51% statewide turnout rate that the Secretary of State projected before the election.)

Snohomish County Elections reports that 101,737 votes have been received so far, with 45,000 votes currently uncounted. Voters are approving the measure, but with a much closer margin: 51.72-48.28% (51,222-47,809). The remaining 45,000 votes should add about 1,000 votes to R-71’s lead.

We do not know how many votes were received today by the County, but if we assume that 50% of the total number of votes were in the mail in Election Day, then another 50,000 or so votes should be still on the way, which should also increase R-71’s lead by about 1,000 votes, if current trends hold.��

(If we assume that the County will achieve a 50% turnout rate, roughly 40,000 Ballots should be in the mail, which only adds 800 additional votes, not the 1,000 estimated in the precious paragraph.)

The Pierce County Auditor reports that 90,367 votes are in, and the “rejected” votes are leading, 47,307 (53.08%) to 41,809 (46.92%). The estimate is that 50,000 ballots remain to be counted. �60,000 additional votes would be needed for the County to reach a 50% turnout rate, and if you projected that 110,000 votes onto the current trend the “approve 71” final vote should decline by about 6,500 votes.

Clark County Elections indicates that R-71 is losing there as well, with 36,206 (46.01%) voting to approve and 42,481 (53.99%) voting to reject. 13,000 ballots are reported to be uncounted. Clark County has 215,626 registered voters, and based on these numbers it would take an additional 14,450 votes to get to a 50% turnout. That suggests the “approve R-71” vote should decline by about another 2,000 votes.

Finally, Spokane County. There are 257,092 registered voters in the County, and they came out against R-71 in a big way, with 38,079 (39.98%) voting to approve and 57,169 (60.02%) voting to reject. The estimate is that 35,000 votes remain to be counted, and it’s likely those votes will decrease the “approve R-71” lead by about 6,000 votes.

The County has exceeded 50% turnout, and we do not know how many votes arrived today. If we assume 60% turnout, another 25,000 votes would be in the mail, reducing the “approve R-71” lead by another 5,000 votes.

The Big “Wrap-Up”

So what does all this mean?

How about this: I have forever told people that if the candidate or measure you support can win, with a reasonable margin, in Washington’s five largest counties, you’re gonna win the election.

With that in mind, let’s tally up the numbers and see where we are:

The King County tally, by my guess, will add another 130,000 “approved” votes to the statewide total. Snohomish County voters could add 2,000 more votes. Pierce, Clark, and Spokane Counties should reduce the “approve” votes by about 14,500 votes.

Add it all up, and I’m estimating that R-71 could gain 117,500 votes...but that number will certainly go down because of the votes of the rest of the State...so if I had to guess (and I guess I am) I would project that R-71 is going to pass with a margin of victory somewhere in the range of 80-100,000 votes, as opposed to the current margin of roughly 37,000 votes. �

There are lots of caveats here: the estimates of incoming ballots could be off, the 50% turnout estimate could be inaccurate, and currently uncounted votes might not follow the trends of the votes counted so far.

Additionally, I will freely admit that I’m biased: I support R-71 (and to take it further, if same-sex couples want to marry...as long as I don’t have to buy all of them presents, I don’t see the problem), and this bias could be affecting my judgment.

So that’s today’s story: based on the return data that is known, and my own guess on what’s likely, I’m going way out on the proverbial limb and projecting that R-71 wins by somewhere between 80-100,000 votes, primarily on the strength of the uncounted King County vote and an estimate of votes that will arrive over the next 48 hours.

As with any modeling project, there are a lot of potential problems that might affect the model’s output—including my own biases—but I feel good about this estimate, and over the next week or so, we’ll see if I’m right.

Additionally, we got to have an inside look at the “process” of R-71...and we got to have an exclusive conversation with Charlene Strong’s shoulder—which, I promise, will become a “teachable moment” for yours truly as we grow, going forward, from a “words only” storytelling service into a video storytelling service.

It’s a great place to end Part Three—and it leaves us perfectly positioned to move on to a discussion of what we can learn from Tuesday’s skirmishes—but for now I have to go and strap on the goat leggings and get back to work.

After all, the doomed won’t sacrifice themselves, will they?

UPDATE: 11/05/09, 8 PM PST

After looking at tonight's numbers, I'm now thinking that the margin of victory will be closer to 30-35,000, rather than 80-100,000.

This is because King County now has only 13,800 uncounted votes, far fewer than I predicted. However, I also checked to see if my own ballot packet had arrived, and it has not. This tells us there are an unknown number of ballots that were mailed on Election Day but have not yet arrived.

An additional clue? Turnout is currently reported at 34.93% for King County, which is 15% below the projected State average. If we assume the County will make that 50% turnout number, that means 150,000 ballots are currently unaccounted for...in a County that's voting 2:1 in favor of the Referendum.

If that many votes do turn up, my 80-100,000 vote margin of victory estimate will again be looking pretty good.

The other big question mark is Pierce County. They report 50,000 uncounted votes--but that is also the exact number they reported yesterday, which makes me think that estimate might be...shall we say, inaccurate?

Snohomish County is now also reporting 56,000 uncounted votes, but they are running something like 52-48%, and as a result I don't expect those uncounted voted to affect the outcome in any significant way.

Spokane County reports 15,000 uncounted votes, and they are voting 60-40% against, which should reduce the margin of victory by about 10,000 votes.

Clark County has 750 uncounted votes, and they are also trending against, but near 50-50, so even if a lot of votes do come in, the effect should be minimal either way.

The quick summary?

I'm now highly confident that R-71 will win. The margin could be as low as 30-35,000 or as high as my original 80-100,000 estimate if all those King County votes come in.

I don't think the votes in the other counties are going to change the outcome--and while it's not yet official, I think you can start to maybe breathe just a bit easier.

King County's Ballot Scanners can't handle close Mayor's race?

raincity calling — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:26:53 PST

A new King 5 Poll shows Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan are in a statistical dead heat (as reported at Publicola.net)

Unfortunately for us and the candidates, a report in the 9/3/09 Queen Anne News, states that King County's brand new Diebold/Premier (now ES&S) ballot scanners fail to record all the votes. This is bad in and of itself, but it poses an even more �significant problem when there are very close races, like the McGinn/Mallahan race and possibly a few others.

See below the fold for more of the story.

I should point out that this problem was not discovered during Federal certification, state certification, or during KCE's own testing. �The problem was discovered by an observant elections worker during the ballot counting phase of the August Primary.

Here is what the Queen Anne News reported:

"A few days into processing ballots for the August Primary, a King County Elections worker compared an actual ballot to its scanned image and noticed that a vote, clearly visible on the ballot, was not shown on the scanned image.

As election workers began exploring what went wrong, two problems emerged. First it was found that the scanners could not read ovals that were lightly filled or not completely filled in. Then it was discovered that minuscule amounts of ink and debris were being scrubbed off as ballots passed over the scanner. This debris would build up until the scanner could no longer see the votes under the line of built-up ink, even though the build-up not visible to the eye.

Department officials decided to zero out, or erase, all data collected to that point and re-scan all ballots. They ordered more frequent equipment cleanings and operators were told to look at scanned images at the end of each batch in hopes of catching problems...Observers from both the Democrats and Republicans on the scene agreed that a large turnout, such as that of last November, would be difficult for the Elections Department to handle until faults in the new equipment are corrected."

I recently heard from one person who has inside knowledge that, due to time limitations, KCE does not plan to be as rigorous in the November election. It feels it is ok to not ensure that everyone's vote is recorded because the number of unrecorded votes will not matter. In close races, all votes do matter so I am not consoled by KCE's cavalier attitude. �

I am really tired of election officials not caring whether or not all votes are recorded and counted as recorded.

Queen Anne Article.

My vote will be counted. Will yours?

Lurleen — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:00:44 PDT

Dear readers, we have reached the penultimate chapter of our story Ballot Voyage: An Approve Referendum 71 ballot odyssey!

Chapter 3, in which a ballot signature is validated and the voter is credited with single-handedly saving the Domestic Partnership law from the scourge of hard-hearted anti-family judgmentalists!

Well ok, maybe not single-handedly. �In fact, my vote will have been for naught if your vote doesn't join it in the R-71 APPROVED bin. �Ahem!

Some housekeeping reminders: �

King County voters can track their ballots just like I did by clicking here. �

Ballots must be dropped in an official drop box or postmarked on or before Tuesday, Nov. 3rd to be valid. �Don't make the mistake of dropping your ballot in the mail after the Post Office has closed on the 3rd. �Vote early to avoid mishaps, kerfuffles and discombobulations.

Mailed-in ballots from Pierce County require 61 cents in postage. �Ballots from other counties require first-class postage.

If you want to avoid the mail, locations of official ballot drop boxes can be found in your voter guide and on the website of your county auditor or elections department.

Fair warning: if I learn on Nov. 4th that you forgot to vote or were "too busy", as Bjork says you'll meet an army of me. �This will be an understatement!

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend .

People of faith speaking out for Approve Referendum 71

Lurleen — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:45:09 PDT

Reverend Joan Montagnes and about 50 members and friends of the East Shore Unitarian Church took it to the streets of Bellevue, Washington Sunday. �Rev. Joan said she put out the call for lay leadership, Chris Conkling answered, and the event happened in short order. �

Their message: Vote APPROVED on Referendum 71!
Their philosophy: The visibility was a natural expression of the U-U's foundational Seven Principles, especially We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person [and] respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. �More than one participant stated that for them, service is a form of prayer or worship. �Joan shared the following shared convictions with me

Today both love and fear are rising up in our nation. �

We stand on the side of love. �

We want to harness the power of love to stop oppression, exclusion and violence. �

We believe that homophobia, not homosexuality is a sin.

Powerful words.

Yours truly learned about the event through the equality grapevine: the local district democrats put out the word to neighboring district dems, one of whom is a PFLAGger who sent notice out to her network, and voila! �

It is said that our opponents have an advantage because they have a pre-fab church network to utilize. �That's true, but so do we. �Last I checked there were over 160 faith leaders, congregations and organizations representing three faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Unitarian) and four entire denominations (United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist, Methodist, Lutheran) who have endorsed the Approve 71 campaign. These folks come from Anacortes, Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, DuPont, Edmonds, Ellensburg, Everett, Federal Way, Freeland, Friday Harbor, Kenmore, Kirkland, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Langley, Maple Valley, Mercer Island, Monroe, Newport, Olympia, Pullman, Puyallup, Renton, Seattle, Shoreline, Spokane, Tacoma, Tieton, Vancouver, Woodinville, Yakima

They represent the following denominations and faiths: American Baptist, Apostolic Catholic Church in America, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Mennonite, Methodist, Metropolitan Community Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), Quaker, United Church of Christ, United Methodist, Living Waters Fellowship, Center for Spiritual Living, Unity Spiritual Life Center, Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian, Unitarian-Universalist.

Janet Tu of The Seattle Times has written the terrific article Religion no litmus test on Ref. 71 which summarizes the scene.

In the past several weeks, Jessica Gavre, director of the social-justice program at First United Methodist Church in Tacoma, has knocked on doors, hosted a fundraiser at her church and handed out inserts for church bulletins -- all on behalf of Referendum 71.
She and others at her church have urged fellow faith leaders to preach sermons and write letters to the editor about the importance of upholding the recent expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law for same-sex and senior couples.
"Our faith community believes that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law," Gavre said.

Pro-equality people of faith in Washington are speaking up and speaking out. �The power of their service is evident not just by the positive responses of passing drivers, but on the faces of participating LGBT people who rarely have their humanity affirmed so publicly.

Today anti-equality activist, Bothell preacher and flip-flopper Joe Fuiten dispatched an email from a Family Research Council executive in Tennessee

The time has come for God's people in Washington State to stand for marriage and vote to "Reject" on Referendum 71!

While Fuiten seems to prefer that out-of-staters like Oregonian Gary Randall or the FRC-Tennessee guy do the talking, I think Washington voters respond best to the voices and opinions of real Washingtonians. �Below the fold is a sampling of what God's people in Washington State are saying. �

Again this Sunday people of faith from West Seattle rallied in support for Approve 71. �Check out Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation's main webpage.

West Seattle's religious leaders made the following statement in West Seattle Herald

As religious leaders of West Seattle, we have come together to speak with one voice for all families. Religious leaders before us have spoken to end slavery, and to ensure equal rights to all persons regardless of gender, nationality, religion, and race.
Today, we feel compelled to speak out in support of Washington's domestic partnership law, which provides essential protections to families throughout the state.
As people of faith, we oppose any effort to take away the rights and protections provided to families through our state's domestic partnership law. ? ?As providers of pastoral care to families, we know that gay and lesbian couples form loving, lasting, committed relationships, raise children and grow old together.
These couples and their children have the same needs and deserve the same rights as their heterosexual peers.
We also know that the domestic partnership law provides important protections to non-gay couples where one partner is at least 62 years of age.
As faith leaders, we care about all families. We have seen first-hand the burdens on a family facing death or illness without important legal and financial protections, from access to healthcare, to the right to visit a partner in the hospital, to the right to make medical decisions for one's own children.
We have felt the worry that exists when a parent who is a firefighter or police officer goes off to work each morning knowing that if something happens to her there won't be support for her family.
We urge all to vote YES on Ref. 71, as a principled expression of our deeply held religious convictions. We urge our congregants to stand in support of all of Washington's families.
In faith,
Rev. Kendall Baker, Retired, United Church of Christ
Rev. Peg Boyle Morgan, Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation
Rev. Dr. Joanne Carlson Brown, Tibbetts Methodist Church
Rev. Diane Darling, Alki Congregational United Church of Christ
Rev. Ann J. Eidson, Admiral Congregational Church
Rev. David Kratz, Fauntleroy United Church of Christ Church
Rabbi Anson Laytner, Congregation Kol HaNeshamah
Rev. Mark Newton, Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation
Rev. Paul Winterstein, Calvary Lutheran Church

As an Evangeligal Christian Shawn Murinko felt moved to come out as an LGBT ally of faith.

Coming out of the Christian closet in support of Ref. 71
THE OLYMPIAN | * Published September 11, 2009
I have a confession to make. I've been in the closet. And I'm not talking about the kind of closet that would undoubtedly leave me wifeless.
Rather, it is that cluttered space in life that pops up from time to time where the intrinsic need to speak up for what is right is blurred by a selfish need to avoid being ostracized by those whom we love and respect. Referendum 71 and this column give me an opportunity to sort this out. In advance, please forgive my catharsis. It has been a long time coming.
I am unashamed to say that I am an Evangelical Christian. In fact, I have often said that three people were off limits from criticizing as a child, they were: Jesus, my mother and Ronald Reagan. (As I've grown older, frankly, I've narrowed my list to include the first two.)...
Growing up in Spokane Valley didn't really afford me the opportunity to appreciate the rich tapestry that a diverse environment offers. It was, instead, a vast sea of white and minivans shuffling through a Mayberry-like existence. Through it all, everything was conveniently, albeit deceptively, homogeneous. There were no Hispanics, or people in wheelchairs, and there were absolutely no persons who were anything but heterosexual.
As time marched on, the narrow tunnel that I was ushered through began to give way to expose what now seems so laughably obvious: Not everyone is like me.
The age-old formula that Hollywood uses in the movies reinforces this notion. There is both good and evil. After all, where would the story be if Batman had no Joker? In the context of the real world, however, this "us versus them" mentality ignores the fact that not all differences are inherently bad as they are portrayed on the screen.
Now, I admit that differences do exist that offend humanity. Our history books are teeming with examples. However, differences alone should never be a disguise for inequality, and Referendum 71 gives us an opportunity to debunk this cultural myth.
In fact, as I write in its defense, I am reminded that it was not that long ago when biracial marriage was shunned and deemed immoral. In contrast, but for the pockets of extremists, these relationships are embraced and not questioned in 2009.
The same, however, cannot be said for those who would be affected if Referendum 71 is rejected.
Opponents argue that this referendum is little more than a gateway to same sex marriage. Since I am unable to predict the future with absolute certainty, I can only speak for the choice that is before the voters today -- a choice, by the way, that does not include marriage equality.
Instead, Referendum 71 is little more than a legal confirmation for others to pursue the very same freedoms that led many Christians across the Atlantic to escape religious persecution. Generations have passed since this struggle and as a consequence, we are removed from the very core of the ideals we once so readily embraced and fought for -- that is, the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
In the historical context, this referendum affords everyone the opportunity to affirm our collective commonalities regardless of religious dogma. And as self-serving as it might be, it gives me the opportunity to come out of the Christian closet in support of Referendum 71.

Rev. Elizabeth "Kit" Ketcham, Minister for the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Whidbey Island speaks out in this letter in the South Whidbey Record

Our individual votes mean a great deal; together, they shape the trajectory of this country, this state, this county. Though one vote in itself may not seem important, together we make the decisions that empower and distinguish us as a democratic nation. Therefore, I urge us all to VOTE.
When we cast our ballots, we take each others' lives in our hands, in a sense. Successful and unsuccessful candidates for office find their lives and responsibilities changed. Referenda and initiatives also change people's lives. If we vote one way, we may better our own lives, but trash someone else's. If we vote another, we may improve others' lives, but may have to adjust to changes in society. Therefore, I urge us all to VOTE TO IMPROVE OTHERS' LIVES.
As we consider the possible outcomes of this year's election issues, we need to realize that we have the power, through our votes, to hurt people, to diminish their standard of living, to declare them unequal under the law, to debase their relationships, to deny them compensation for their commitment to each other, to call them second-class citizens.
A democratic society is committed to equal rights for all citizens. Therefore, I urge us all to VOTE TO APPROVE REFERENDUM 71 and ensure the safety and legitimacy of domestic partnerships, both same sex and senior couples.

Judi Edwards writes from Bremerton courtest of Kitsap Sun

A Christian's Role in Supporting Referendum 71
BREMERTON -- I'm a married, heterosexual, Christian minister with eight grandchildren. I try to be a follower of Jesus, who said that we should care about the least, who challenged those in power and with special privileges, and who directed his ministry of love and acceptance to the less-privileged. Accordingly, I support Referendum 71.
I'm speaking up -- and focusing on religious issues -- because some have unfortunately treated the legal rights and privileges of domestic partnership as something a particular religious viewpoint should control.
Ref. 71 affirms legal protections, rights and responsibilities already passed by our Legislature. It thus provides "family support" to those families which include same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with one partner over the age of 62, who are registered as domestic partners. This also means it provides more protection and security to children in such families, and I believe that's important to the people of Washington.
I would not argue with people's beliefs. Please do follow your own, well-thought out beliefs. But our government should not provide different benefits and protections based on any particular set of religious beliefs. There are many strong Christians or other religious persons among same-sex couples.
If you do not believe in same-sex relationships, don't engage in them. If you want your marriage to be strong, then work at your relationship to make it so. Don't limit others from having legal protections of their own committed relationships.
If your religious institution does not want to recognize certain family configurations, it need not. Many religious groups currently have rules limiting who may be married in their facilities or by their religious leaders, or even who is recognized as being married -- including those who have been married in civil ceremonies or by other religious leaders. The freedom to make those rules wouldn't change. How do these protections threaten religious organizations?
And we're not even talking about marriage. The legislation to be affirmed by Ref. 71 has a set of words it inserts in each of the applicable chapters of the state law so that in references to certain matters which apply to married couples, those would also apply to people in state-registered domestic partnerships. Opponents sometimes refer to these repetitions, needed as legalities, as if the legislation is referring to domestic partnerships as marriages. It is not. It is repeating legal phrases to assure that protections provided to marriages are automatically provided to domestic partnerships.
Whether someone does or doesn't support same-sex committed relationships -- they're there. The question is how we respond to that, to make life more difficult for the couples (and the rest of their family), or allow them the same protections so many of us already have. Supporting the domestic partnership law is not only the fair thing to do, but assuring legal safeguards in situations applicable to committed couples adds to the stability of our society.
I encourage everyone who cares about justice and about equal protections for all families to vote for Ref. 71. Affirm this important legislation passed to support our families.

Rev. Bob Jackson wrote this column in The Wenatchee World

Approve
I vote to approve Referendum 71 because I believe, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, that we are a people of "liberty and justice for all." That patriotic stance is based upon my religious convictions as a follower of Jesus, who said that "all the law and the prophets" can be summarized by "loving God with your whole being" and "loving your neighbor as you love yourself."
Jesus also quoted from the scriptures of the Old Testament, with which he grew up, that powerful Q-and-A -- "What does God require of you?" That you do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.
How wonderful this world would be if we all lived that way, without the necessity of civil rights laws and legal requirements to treat one another with liberty and justice for all. But without such laws, unfortunately, the powers that be allow for the domination of some people over other people and the denial of equality and justice.
We have seen in some of the sadder dimensions of our nation's story that the powers that be allowed white Americans to dominate people of color by treating them as less than equal, even less than human, and the institution of slavery is that terrible stain on our history that we'd rather forget.
Similarly, the powers that be allowed males to treat females as less than equal, and for far too long women were denied such basic rights as voting, property rights, and many other contradictions of our claims to equality and liberty and justice for all. I am proud to live in a state where we "allowed" women to vote 10 years before they received that justice in the rest of the country.
In much the same way, our state is closer to the forefront among states taking steps toward liberty and justice for a third group of citizens who have, for far too long, suffered the burden of homophobia, resulting in their second-class citizenship. Racial bigotry, sexism, and homophobic-heterosexism -- all three are examples of how the powers that be have allowed one party of the populace to dominate others, and, by treating them as less than equal, have denied them the liberty and justice that we say is for all.
When I began my 40 years in the ministry, more than half the states denied the right of a person of color to be married to a white person. It took action all the way to the Supreme Court to end such injustice.
I have three children by adoption because that's the only way I could have children, but some states still restrict adoption to heterosexual couples only. In biblical times, families often consisted of a patriarch with many wives (and a dozen concubines) -- and yet many so-called Christians deny that the role and definition of family has quite naturally evolved.
The argument that if we recognize other variations of family from the one we grew up in, that somehow that will "threaten my marriage to my wife," is utter nonsense. When I married, the state gave my partner countless civil rights -- visitation of me when hospitalized, the right to make decisions for me when I was incapacitated, rights to my pension and my Social Security benefits and many, many others. Our state has secured many such rights through the domestic partnership laws that move us a bit closer to making equality, liberty and justice for all a reality.
I say it loudly, we must not take away from others those rights that we cherish for ourselves.
Please join me in approving Referendum 71.
The Rev. Bob Jackson is a retired pastor. He was most recently pastor of United Church of Christ in Peshastin, retiring in 2005.

Rabbi Marti Leviel of Bellingham writes in
The Bellingham Herald

Saturday, Oct. 24, 2009
Rumors of religious intrusion untrue
I hear that there is a rumor being spread that if referendum 71 passes, my synagogue or church will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. That's not true - not even remotely possible.
First of all, the referendum isn't about marriage, it's about domestic partnership and there's no religious ceremony that goes with becoming domestic partners. It is a civil act, just like getting a business license. Thousands of couples have already registered without asking a church or synagogue to bless their partnership.
Furthermore, religious institutions decide what ceremonies they perform and for whom. There's nothing in the referendum that would tell my church or my synagogue what to do. Some of us already choose not to perform marriages for divorced people or interfaith couples or those we feel aren't ready for marriage. So even if same-sex marriage were someday to become legal in Washington, we would still decide what ceremonies we will perform. We would not lose this right.
Don't fall victim to scare tactics. Please mark your ballot "approve" on referendum 71.

Am I starting to make my point? �People of faith support approval of Referendum 71 and other civil rights measures because they believe in the intrinsic value and equality of every person. �As Josh Frides said in Janet Tu's article

"There's this huge fallacy that the debate about gay rights is a debate between gay and lesbian people and secular people on the one side, and people of faith on the other," said Josh Friedes, spokesman for the coalition to approve R-71. "The truth is very, very different."

Indeed it is.

Public Option = Holy Roman Empire

eridani — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:16:06 PDT

The traditional historians' joke about the Holy Roman Empire is that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. �Once upon a time, the original framers of the public option proposal envisioned a plan that would be open to anybody, and very likely have more than 100 million enrolled--a really big and cheap risk pool which would drive prices down. �All current legislative versions of the public option, unfortunately, are neither public nor options given that 95% of the public will not be allowed to take advantage of them. �Our Democratic representatives have figured out by now that their base likes it whenever they act tough advocating a public option. �Few of those people understand that the public option will most likely never be there for them. �When they find out, I predict very serious political blowback.

Why are so many on the side of health care reform are more interested in the idea of a public option than the actual facts about the proposed real legislation? �Probably because it is an automatic reflex response against the Republicans and insurance companies who don't like the idea, but please consider that they are taking this approach because it enables them to win no matter what happens. �This is already becoming a close replay of 1993, when Clinton's bill, written in secret by big insurance companies at Jackson Hole, was attacked by Republicans and small insurers. �Of course the big insurers didn't defend her and the legislation they had written--they preferred no reform at all, and the Clinton legislation was just a Plan B fallback in case it was forced on them. �That is exactly what is going on in the current debate.

Of course the public likes the public option idea. �After all, this is the same public that overwhelmingly wants government involvement in health care one way or another, whether a comprehensive single payer plan or just taking care of all the people who don't now have access to health care in some unspecified way.

But the facts on the ground are this. �The public is going to absolutely hate any of the bills being considered if they are actually enacted. For one thing, we have two election cycles to go through before anyone sees anything at all happen in 2013, during which the victims of a jobless recovery are going to see health care in this country go further and further down the drain. �Yes, I know that forbidding discrimination on the grounds of pre-existing conditions comes into effect immediately, but that has no practical significance as long as insurers are allowed to charge whatever they want for such policies.

Also, what people will experience instead is being forced under penalty of financial sanctions to spend 8-12% of their incomes to buy private insurance which at the basic level will only cover 70% of medical expenses. �(Mandated private insurance in other countries using that approach is not only far cheaper, but also has minimal or no co-pays or deductibles.) �They will still have insurance companies choosing their doctors and denying claims at will. �Expenses will still be going up from an extremely high baseline, despite limits on the allowable percent increase per year. �Those worried about deficit spending will be asking "We've gotten ourselves another trillion into national debt for THIS?"

Older people are going to hate the mandated age discrimination. �Younger people are going to hate having to pay anything when most aren't going to see any benefits.

How to get around this while our legislators insist on incremental reform? �Very simple--just make the Medicare program that exists right now open to anyone. �If there is concern about a big rush to the door, open the door in increments, starting with early retirees over 55 and the unemployed of any age. �No set-up time necessary, since Medicare is a working system right now. � The result will be a visible and good-sized minority who will counter any insurance company lies about reform with a really big fact on the ground. �If anyone is thinking "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," let me just say this about that. �In this case it's the existent that is the enemy of the non-existent.

Still, there will be problems even with an incremental approach that starts to pay off for people immediately. �Clearly, those who volunteer to enroll in Medicare with be sicker, driving up costs without a commensurate input of funds. �The cheapest and most efficient solution of all is still single payer Improved Medicare for All. �If you are going to force everyone to pay into a health care system, why not the HR 676 system for $125/month instead of insurance "exchanges" for $400-$2000/month? �The latter will wipe out large swathes of middle class discretionary income in return for nothing at all, not a good thing in an economy 70% dependent on consumer spending.

What Kinds of Choices Do We Need For Our Health Care?

eridani — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:26:02 PDT

Most people would answer this by saying that they want to choose their doctor and make decisions about the kind of treatment they get. �If you ask them if they enjoy trying to figure out which of dozens of insurance plans are both within budget and likely to actually reimburse them in the event of illness, you get a very different response. �And of course with insurance provided by employers, there is often no choice offered at all other than turning it down. �The very existence of thousands of private health insurers often eliminates the choice of practitioner entirely--you choose from their preferred provider pool or pay through the nose to go out of network. �Even if you are lucky enough to develop an ongoing relationship with a doctor, it can be cancelled any time if your employer drops your plan, or even if the plan stays the same but the preferred provider list changes.

It is almost a general systems principle that eliminating or strictly limiting choices at the level of infrastructure is exactly what permits the largest variety of choices at the level of superstructure. �It wouldn't be possible at all to have the huge variety of electrical appliances we have today if manufacturers were allowed to make plugs any size and shape they felt like making them. �I have yet to meet anyone who has felt oppressed by having only the choices of 110V or 220V for line voltage. �Yet the congressional architects of current health care reform seem to think that offering a choice of insurance plans is far more important than choice of practitioner or treatment, yet it is those choices which are the very choices that private insurance limits or forbids entirely.

�Good, useful choices�� Lots of different electrical appliances�� Your doctor, hospital and treatments
�Bad, dysfunctional choices�� Making outlets and plugs whatever �size you want�� Which hard to understand insurance plan you want to risk enrolling in

In addition to the systemic structural reasons for eliminating choice in health insurance plans, there is an ethical reason to do so as well. �It makes me furious whenever anybody says that people ought to "be able to choose the plan that is best for their families." �This is one of the most morally and ethically vile things that anyone could ever say, because what they are really saying is that some people deserve good health care, and other people are relatively worthless sorts who do not. Families with more money are better than families with less money, who just ought to adjust to the greater odds that they may die or be bankrupted.

All current legislation describing an insurance "exchange" proposes having four different levels, each of which costs more and covers more. That includes the "public option" proposals as well. � Every other developed country in the world, whether they achieve universal coverage with tightly regulated private insurance, outright government ownership of the health care system or the publicly funded privately delivered single payer system, provides a single standard of coverage for everyone with no exceptions. Co-pays and deductibles are far cheaper, if they exist at all. �No age discrimination is allowed, in contrast to the proposed reforms which actually write such discrimination into law.

It's certainly true that all these countries have multi-tiered health care in practice simply because the affluent buy extra bells and whistles for themselves over and above what the government either guarantees or provides to the general population. That is morally acceptable, because only after everyone's basic health care needs have been met in a reasonably comprehensive way should "choice" should come into play in the area of health care. It's like Bill Gates being able to have an expensive sprinkler and fire alarm system that most people could never afford. That doesn't matter as long as everyone gets the same fire engines in the event of fire. Why have our legislators written bills underpinned by the assumption that people with more money should have access to the health care equivalent of modern hook and ladder trucks and the rest of us should get something more like the horse-drawn wagons of a century ago? �Only the cheapest plan would be eligible for subsidies.

According to the online calculator provided by the Kaiser Fountation(1), someone over 60 with a family income in the area of $40,000 be forced to pay $410-$450/month to get only 70% of expenses taken care of with the Basic Plan under HR 3200 (the best of the proposed reform packages). �That includes both the allowable age discrimination and the offsetting subsidy. Under the single payer bill HR 676, individuals would all pay $125/adult/month regardless of age, and businesses would have a payroll tax of 8-10% above a certain (negotiable) threshold. (Note that businesses that self-insure generally are paying significantly more than that now). With the $325 savings per month, even someone at this modest income level could afford a choice of many self-financed gold-plated health care extras.

Conservatives, and Obama himself, say that raising taxes to pay for universal health care is unacceptable. �Just how dim-witted does someone have to be in order to prefer a $450/month "premium" to a $125/month "tax"? �There are probably a few sociopaths around who would cheerfully pay someone to saw off their dominant hand if the other half of the deal was that someone they hated got both hands sawn off, but how many of them could there actually be?

Why not force private health insurance into the business model now used by private life insurance? �If you work, you must pay Social Security tax, and if you die before your dependents reach majority, they get Social Security survivors' benefits. �Despite this mandated government support of orphans with a single benefit level by all workers, a large variety of private life insurance plans are available because some parents want more income for their kids than Social Security provides. �And buying such insurance takes not so much as one thin dime from the kids whose parents can't afford that option.

Hey, Congress!!! �I don't want to "shop" for health insurance in any kind of "market"! �I want to pay a tax to support a trust fund which pays for care when and if I need it, just like I pay my property tax to support the fire department. �In the event of fire, they send a truck out. �Just the truck and people with the training required to put out the fire. �No more or no less than what I would need in that circumstance. �No personal responsibility questionnaires to prove that I've taught my kids not to play with matches, that I have my wiring up to code, that I don't store oily rags in the basement and am truly eligible for and deserving of �assistance. �And especially no tripling of my property tax just for using the service. There is not one single logical reason why a heart attack should not be treated (and paid for) like putting out a house fire. �The cheapest and most efficient way to pay for health care is to pay for it like we pay for any other public good, like schools, roads, libraries, fire and police protection, or any other part of our society's infrastructure.

(1)http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx#

Resources

http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/
http://www.pnhp.org/
http://www.1payer.net
http://www.healthcare-now.org
http://www.unitedforsinglepayer.org

A message to America from insurance company CEOs

eridani — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:56:04 PDT

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/vindamiatrix/Politics/Grimreaperweb.jpg

Drawn by Roberta Gregory. �See more of her stuff at http://www.robertagregory.com/index.html

Backstory: �A CIGNA employee gave the finger -- literally -- to a woman whose daughter died after the insurance giant refused to cover her liver transplant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.htm

Let's quit the killing and bring our troops home NOW

leduc — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:38:02 PDT

I suggest that the next time President Obama meets with his advisers on the future of the United States' involvement in Afghanistan, he conducts the meeting in front of the Vietnam War Memorial. �Let the almost 60,000 ghosts of Americans lost in that conflict bear witness to the discussions. �I have been to that memorial (and am an Army veteran who spent time in Vietnam) and know that it would be a fitting place to discuss Afghanistan and Iraq.

�

Obama says the reason we are in Afghanistan is to defeat al-Qaida (not the Taliban). �Yet our intelligence people estimate that there are only about 100 al-Qaida fighters there. �The rest are across the border in Pakistan. �So our military is fighting an enemy that they need not fight and we are spending billions of dollars on a war we cannot win. �It is only a matter of time before we hear the `I see the light at the end of the tunnel' statements. �But that light, just like it was in Vietnam, is from a freight train barreling down on us.

Bring our troops home...NOW! �It is not worth one more life nor is it worth of billions of dollars we are spending there. �Instead of bombs, help the people of Afghanistan build roads, schools, medical facilities and more. �When we occupy a country, we become an enemy and a target. �We need to build friendships. �If the people of a country want the Taliban to rule that country, let them make that decision.

Call or write your president, congressperson or senators today and �tell them that our involvement is totally a waste of blood and money. �

Four Basic Kinds of Health Care Financing Around the World

eridani — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:43:51 PDT

The four basic methods of paying for health care are as follows.

--The Bismarck model
--The Beveridge model
--The Douglas model
--You're On Your Own, Baby! (YOYO)

The Bismarck model
�� Created in 1880s by Otto von Bismarck in Germany
�� Based on private, tightly regulated, insurance funds
�� Mostly through employers
�� Government pays for enrollment of the unemployed
�� Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France and Japan

The Beveridge model
�� Britain's National Health Service created by William Beveridge in the 1940s
�� Government owns and operates the entire health care system
�� General taxes pay all costs. No bills to patients
�� Some private care, privately paid for - about 3% of total health care costs
�� Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Hong Kong

The Douglas model
�� Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan, got this program established in 1947 and 1961
�� Tax-funded government payments for health care
�� Nearly all doctors and some hospitals are private
�� Canada, Taiwan, South Korea

You're On Your Own, Baby! (YOYO)
�� Third World model
�� The vast majority of care paid for out-of-pocket (OOP)
�� If you have money you get health care; if you don't have money you don't
�� Rural regions of Africa, India, South Asia, China, South America

All other developed countries around the world focus on making one of the first three models provide the majority of health care. �One of the reasons that our current non-system is such a mess is that we have all four systems in operation at the same time instead of focusing on just one. �Our current employer-based insurance resembles the Bismarck model, except without the strong regulation of private insurance. �We have the Beveridge model for the military, the VA and Indian health services. �We have the Douglas model for people over 65 with Medicare. �And then there are the large numbers of people staying in animal shelters on state fairgrounds to get free care offered by organizations that mostly operate in Third World countries, not to mention the 45,000 a year who die because they can't pay for the care that would have saved them.

Currently, there are several versions of health care reform being considered by Congress originated by Democrats. �(All Republican proposals are essentially YOYO, even though to a person they would insist on adding another trillion to the national debt to obliterate any foreign power that killed 45,000 Americans a year.) �The Beveridge model is out except for those already served by it--no American progressive health care activists have ever proposed anything remotely resembling it. �

Single payer (HR 676/HR1200/S703, the Douglas model) has been pushed "off the table." �Howard Dean (Democracy for America) and radio host Thom Hartmann have proposed an incremental implementation of this model, opening Medicare to voluntary enrollment by anyone, though only Senator Rockefeller has written actual legislation with a more restricted version of the proposal, opening voluntary enrollment in Medicare to early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64.(1) This particular type of incremental proposal is the only kind which will benefit anyone at all before 2013. �(Actual current proposals will leave Democrats two full election cycles to explain to the public why their health care situations are continuing to go straight to hell.)

That leaves the Bismarck regulated private insurance model. �Would any of the current national legislative proposals(2) (the Senate HELP bill, the Senate Finance committee bill, or the House combined bill HR 3200) result in a true Bismarck model system? �Or could they at least be the start of an incremental approach to such a system?

The answer to the first question is clearly no. �Countries like France, the Netherlands and Germany spend around $3000 per capita in US dollars compared to our $6000 per capita expenditure(3), and current proposals recommend spending up to a trillion dollars more over a ten-year period. �They also recommend mandating the payment of an outrageous 10-12% of income for private insurance premiums alone, which would only cover 70% of actual health care costs to individuals and require co-pays as well. �That these premiums would be subsidized for some means only that our national debt would be increased to line the pockets of insurance company CEOs instead of to create green jobs or rebuild our infrastructure.

The French pay 8% of their income for health care, which takes care of everything, with no deductibles and minimal co-pays. � The Netherlands, which taxes employers to pay 50% of health care costs, requires mandated private insurance for the remainder costing 100 euros/month (~$140) per adult, with no co-pays or deductibles. �Everyone gets the same standard of care regardless of age or employment status, in contrast to the four tier system proposed by our Congress, which is based on the principle that some people deserve good health care and other people whose lives are worth less do not. � In addition, age discrimination is written in to all current legislation, with charging older people from two to five times as much as standard premiums allowed. (This is not to say that affluent people in countries using the Bismarck, Douglas or Beveridge health care models don't buy a lot of extras for themselves--they do. �But it's on their own dime, and costs for good standard comprehensive care for everyone are low enough that they have plenty of extra dimes to use for that if they so choose.)

The costs to individuals in these Bismarck systems are very similar to what single payer systems proposed here would charge. �HR 676 estimates $125/month/adult, and the Washington State single payer model originally proposed $75/month, more recently up to $100/month.(4) �These approximate cost levels should serve as a basic standard to determine whether any health care reform proposal is acceptable. �Clearly current proposals are not.

But could they become acceptable eventually if enacted? �The answer could be yes if Congress ever develops the will to impose cost controls on insurance companies. �France, Germany, the Netherlands, et al. impose cost controls which regulate what doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers can charge for their services. �Currently, Congress refuses to do that, and without a considerable amount of public pressure they are not going to change. �And if Congress ever had the political will to really regulate insurance companies, it would also have the will to put single payer back on the table. �Enacting current legislation as is and hoping for good behavior from insurance companies is nothing but a recipe for an ongoing disaster.

Thanks to Dr. Sherry Weinberg, Vice-President of Health Care for All--WA, for her description of the four basic models for health care financing. �They were derived from the book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T. R. Reid

Notes
(1)Rockefeller Amendment #C26 to Title I, Subtitle G (Role of Public Programs) to America's Healthy Future Act, p.260
(2)http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs_full.pdf
(3)http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
(4)http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/health-security-trust/

The Referendum 71 campaign money situation

Lurleen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:51:07 PDT

The monthly campaign expenditure numbers came out last night and are reported on the Washington Public Disclosure Commission's website. �As predicted, radical-right extremists have dumped last-minute money into the race. �Family Policy Institute of Washington plopped $200,000 into the mysterious new PAC called "Vote Reject on R-71" that appeared late last week. �FPIW bills itself as an affiliate of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council. �Dobson is famous for advocating the paddling of children, and Perkins for his connections to the Klan. �The Vote Reject PAC is run by Dave Mortenson, a seasoned and savvy conservative campaign consultant.

Referendum 71 is the Washington state ballot measure asking voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law passed by a wide margin by the Washington Legislature in May and signed by Gov. Gregoire. �The law makes domestic partnerships parallel to civil marriage at the state level, providing vital rights to straight senior and same-sex domestic partners that married people have like pension inheritance and the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner.

First glances indicate that the Approve Referendum 71 campaign has greatly out-fundraised the opposition, and sure enough the David and Goliath comparisons are already being made by Larry Stickney. �But don't get too comfortable just yet. �Campaigns have 5 days to deposit donation checks, so we won't know until perhaps Tuesday, October 20th just how much the opposition really raked in right before the large donor ban took effect on October 12th. �The large donor ban means that the most money any individual can donate after Oct. 12th is $5,000 (regardless of how much they donated before Oct. 12). �There is also the distinct possibility that an out-of-state enterprise like National Organization for Marriage will swoop in an provide tv time and ads for the opposition "unasked". �You know I've been right about these things before. �The Approve 71 campaign still needs your support.

Half of Reject's $200,000 has already been spent on radio ad time. �Seven local stations have accepted money to run these anti-child, anti-family radio ads.

Meanwhile, true to form, a substantial proportion of expenditures made by Larry Stickney's Protect Marriage Washington and Gary Randall's Faith & Freedom PAC have gone to salary for Stickney, attorney's fees and maintenance of Randall's redundant website. �However, Stickney has spent about $10,000 on yard signs, and Randall about $500 on postage. �It isn't entirely clear who paid for Protect Marriage Washington's lurid fliers or theocratic tv ads (here and here).

On the Approve Referendum 71 side, Washington Families Standing Together has received just over one million dollars in cash contributions to date. �WAFST has invested about $400,00 of this into tv ad time and smaller but substantial amounts into mailings and phone banking costs.

I've posted a few of the radio and tv ads from both sides below the fold. �As you listen and watch, notice how the Approve 71 campaign found real Washingtonians to speak for the domestic partnership law. �The opposition had to hire actors.

Here's the link to the opposition's radio ad, and �here is the transcript. �The ad was paid for by FPIW's new PAC. �I think of this as the "Apples and Oranges" ad because the domestic partnership law has no relationship to the mortgage crisis beyond domestic partners being equally hurt by the economic downturn.

Woman 1: You know something? �Our elected representatives don't get it.
Woman 2: What are you talking about?
W1: About the folks in Olympia being out of touch with the real world
W2: So what's new?
W1: Thousands of people are out of work, others are losing their homes, schools are not properly funded, yet legislators spend time passing a so-called everything but marriage bill.
W2: That's the one to add more rights to the state's domestic partnership law?
W1: That's the one. �It should be rejected.
W2: �Ok, you want state legislators to solve the real problems that affect our state, not pass bills that change the definition of marriage?
W1: Exactly. �The bill they passed expands the rights of same-sex partners to be equal to those of married couples. �How does that help people who are losing their home?
W2: What ca we do?
W1: Fortunately Referendum 71 lets us have a voice.
W2: So you want to send a message to the legislature?
W1: Yes! �Vote reject on R-71 when you mail in your ballot.
W2: Paid for by Vote Reject on R-71

Have either of those women even set foot in Yakima or Pullman? �Doubt it. �Even if they had, dollars to donuts they had to be paid to pronounce those non sequiturs. �You can listen to voice-over actors in Protect Marriage Washington's theocratic tv ads here and here.

All of the radio and tv ads released so far by Washington Families Standing Together are posted here. �Every one of them features real Washingtonians talking about their real families. �Here is my favorite so far, which is now being broadcast on tv. �You can help keep this wonderful ad on the air by donating. �Ad time gets more expensive the closer we get to election day.

Jane: Pete-e and I have been together for 32 years. �We were both in nursing, and Pete-e served in the Korean War. �
We raised a daughter together, and she and her husband have given us two beautiful grandchildren. �
Now that we are getting older, we need to be able to take care of each other, especially if one of us is ill.
Voiceover: Don't take away protections for committed couples like family medical leave or extending health insurance coverage to a partner. �Vote to approve Referendum 71.
Jane: For all Washington families.
Voiceover: Paid for by Washington Families Standing Together.

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

We CAN fix it!

moirao — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:49:38 PDT

Update [2009-10-21 15:57:51 by moirao]:I have changed the thread to what I feel is a viable alternative to my previous request of removal of R2 from the 3 Strike list. My reason being, if it is removed, so are alot of the ones we voted to keep locked up. BUT, if we review those that were STRUCK out with a R2 and we find no Serious Violent Offenses then they should be released after 20 years. This solution helps the most people unjustly locked away for life, does the most good for the budgets and protects the vote of the people which was to lock up the "worst of the worst"... This is a letter I submitted to the Legislature 10/13/09. I am hoping someone will sit up and take notice that once again we will be coming to Olympia and asking that the Sentencing Commission is listened to, as well as the voters that make their wishes and concerns known to their Legislators. Will we have to yell if we want to be heard?

Good afternoon!

I am writing on behalf of all that believe Robbery 2 should be removed from the Strike list, those that suffer at the hands of a 3 Strike ruling when they have harmed No one and those families that suffer year after year because they have lost a vital part of their structure. I write for the child that is put in the hands of the state, from lost income or because their chance of following in the footsteps of a parent multiples. I write for the tax payer that no one listens to.

Year after year a bill is created asking that you vote for Robbery 2 to be removed from the Strike list. It has been recognized through Clemency that it isn't a high violent crime and that people can change. It has been recognized that the majority of these offenders are now recovering drug addicts. The need to rob has been removed as well as the dependency for drugs in most of these persons.

Removing R2 could be written so that anyone harming a person in some other charge is looked at differently than those that have harmed no one regardless of the crimes committed. These days no one is sentenced to R2 when a Strike Out is looming. There is a reason for this and I know that you all can see it.

The budget suffers continuously yet this relief is continuously denied. The "Tough on Crime" stance has so many lives being burdened as well as so many programs being cut because we don't want to look at more reasonable ways to cut from the budget. DOC has taken a big hit as I am aware) of but there is more to do. If you start with and remove the 80+ that have a R2 that struck them out you would save so much more.

Personal stakes notwithstanding, it is a smart thing to do. We need to educate, not only the legislature but the public. The law is not what we were told it was when it passed. I am disheartened that R2 was added when 3 Strikes was amended. I voted for it but I voted that the "Worst of the Worst" be given Life, not someone that takes something that isn't theirs. All that is taken in a R2 can be given back, replaced and restored. A couple hundred dollars here and bike there, a botched ATTEMPT! No one lost a life or limb. No one that couldn't continue in the life they led...no one but the drug addict that needed help twice previously and no one gave it to them. For those, we are responsible for the choices they made. We gave them no choice when we locked em up, threw em out and then we wonder why they come back...why sons are with their fathers...why woman raise their children alone and why so many women allow violence, they are addicts! We punished, we didn't rehabilitate! Do we lock them up to punish them or because we are mad at them?

Please take the next few weeks to educate yourselves and those around you. 40 of your peers have agreed that this is a good move...let's start listening!

Final Stretch --Rose Ehart in UP City Council Race

Israelhand — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:30:23 PDT

Some may remember Rose Ehart's last run two years ago at University Place city council. She took on the sitting mayor, and battled to within 19 votes of unseating him, and at one point was ahead by 190 votes in the tallies.

This time she is running for an empty seat, and her opponent is the ubiquitous Denise McCluskey, who last year ran a write-in campaign against 28th District Rep. Tami Green, and of course got crushed.

At the urging of Pierce County Republican string-puller Dick Muri, McCluskey filed for the position in the final few hours, with the stated purpose of keeping Rose from running unopposed. McCluskey ran for University Place city council once before against long-time incumbent (and Warren G. Magnuson Lifetime Achievement Award winner) Jean Brooks, and lost, even though Jean's poor health prevented her from campaigning much.

Each time, McCluskey has raised around $2500.00, even for the race against Green, where a serious bid would take many times that. Her signs reflect this: they are recycled with thick layers of sign material covering the two previous positions she has used them for.

Still, it seems to be one of those back-lash years, and even though Rose (also a past Maggie winner, and lately a member of the Washington State Democrats State E-Board) has raised nearly 10x as much as her opponent, the outcome is not a lock. She is planning one final mailer, and is pushing to raise the final $2000.00 to pay for the balance of the bulk mailing costs.

If you can spare a few bucks, or a couple of hours for sign-waving or phone banking, she would certainly like to hear from you. Her website is at www.RoseEhart.com and her email is electehart@gmail.com --

Protect Marriage Washington posts an ad

Lurleen — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:34:04 PDT

Togas? �Blonds on the savanna? �Tigers on the savanna? �My but God does work in mysterious ways. �Donate now to help us drown out this rubbish with some sanity.

Oh, and yes, this is for real. Have you donated yet?

Five'll get you ten in Washington

Lurleen — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:53:11 PDT

Donate like your neighbors and your contribution will DOUBLE!

There is solid �support for domestic partnerships in the general Washington population, but our support among likely voters in this off-year election is razor thin at 51%. �So, we're working to motivate our supporters to actually vote. �That takes money.

With ballots hitting mailboxes October 16th, our campaign season is only 6 weeks long and hasn't given us the lead time necessary to raise adequate funds before a major donor ban goes into effect on Oct 12. �After that date, no donor can contribute more than $5,000 cumulative. �

Our opposition hasn't been doing any serious fundraising in the past several weeks, confounding our ability to show our need to our supporters. �We suspect that the opposition can do this and are doing this deliberately because they have a big benefactor who will dump big money and/or services into the state for them around the time the major donor ban goes into effect. �This of course would undercut our ability to match their effort later in the campaign. �The opposition campaign includes local affiliates of Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund.

Here's how you can double your pleasure, double our fun: a set of donors from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees at Microsoft (GLEAM), acting as individuals, have pledged to match each dollar of your donations over the next week, up to $10,000. Please help make sure all Washington families are equal: Donate to the Approve Referendum 71 campaign.

Thank you from one of the 12,202 straight senior citizen and LGBT domestic partners in Washington! �We can win this!

p.s. If the radical-right manages to roll back DPs in WA, this may embolden them to engage on a new front: DPs and CUs in semi-equality-tolerant states like Oregon and Nevada. �Yuck.

The White Knight of Eymonia

Richard Champlin — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:05:09 PDT

I understand that The Stranger has declared that Tim Eyman's I-1033 is passing.

Should we assume this as a given?

Tim Eyman and his white horse have been on the news again, declaring his intent to save the property owners and the little people from the evil government dragon.

I sense a resignation, a sigh, an apathetic "it won't happen" or "you have to admit, government has been pathetic lately".

Initiative 1033 promises (though not in its wording) to take the process of making laws, enforcing those laws, and passing judgment on the merits of those laws, and hand it to the wealthiest and most regressive among us, taking it out of the government's hands, meaning your hands, my hands, the hands of the poor, the hands of the homeless, the fixed income elderly without some fabulous connection to a noble family like the Bushes, the Hunts, the Gateses, the Schultzes, the Allens, the Palins. Out of the hands of the teachers, the State Patrol, those who run the animal shelters, the parks, even the jails. The mentally ill? That's all an act, they could snap out of it if they wanted to.

Heck let them live in the bushes and forget about them, for Christ's sakes. They are lives not worth living. Anyone hear a chillingly familiar ring?

It has been remarkable to me how so many seemingly nice and intelligent people, when asked if they know about I-1033 and its most likely impacts, immediately blurt out "oh, but...." and do it with an air that says they know exactly what is wrong with government, that it's the damn laws and taxes and regulations that are designed to take away our freedoms. They say it with conviction. They have bought Tim Eyman's populist bull----, and they, like so many others, are perfectly content to once again focus on the bling and let the government be dismantled.

We have been seeing the catastrophic effects of this kind of populist snake oil most recently in California, where the chickens of Howard Jarvis have multiplied and embarked in a frenzy of building condos within which to roost. I lived in the San Fernando Valley in Howard's day... I voted no on Prop 13. It passed.

How stupid of me. I should have voted yes so I could be a winner like Tim.

Look at it this way: The current budget, with the closing of 39 parks as just a small niblett, will be the baseline, above which government shall not fund. Okay, how about mental health clinics? Was the death of Shannon Harps at the hands of a homeless and unsupervised lunatic an acceptable price of living in Tim Eyman's utopia? You can be assured this will become more commonplace.

Can you imagine the current effort at the national level to produce adequate stocks of H1N1 flu vaccine being conducted if the federal government was funded the way Tim Eyman wants our state, county, and local governments managed? There would be no Center for Disease Control & Prevention. Roads you can drive on safely? Forget about it. Fire engines and personnel to come protect your home? Good luck, especially if you're not wealthy.

I could go on and on, but please, if you care about this state and this country, speak out. Educate yourself on the promise of I-1033.

F.U.S.E. Washington is going to run a phone bank out of its downtown Seattle office this Thursday from about 5:00 or 5:30 to 8 pm, to get the word out to voters. Please consider joining. I am, and I hate phone banks. But I care about my government more. A link is timblair.spaces.live.com...

Richard Champlin

Voters, Visibility and Contributions to Approve Referendum 71

Lurleen — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:20:33 PDT

It's been a week since I did a general round-up of campaign happenings. �Wow, so much is going on I can't hardly get it all down! �The Approve 71 campaign continues to be a vibrant combination volunteers working within the campaign on structured activities, and volunteers taking independent action in total sync with the campaign. �A list of Upcoming Events is at the end of the post.

VOTERS AND VISIBILITY

I have to start off talking about Voters and Visibility, because Josh Castle and his Seattle crew deserve huge credit for seeing something they thought needed doing, and doing it. �Their goal: register to vote as many R-17 supporters as possible before the October 5th registration deadline*. �Josh & Co. set up shop Saturday and Sunday on two major city intersections. �Here's the result, via Josh

The volunteers at Standing Together to Approve Ref 71 this weekend registered 176 voters & signed up 97 volunteers! They showed up & did the hard work & they totally rock!!! We talked to thousands about the urgency of filling out their ballots & voting to Approve 71. We distributed tons of flyers & posters. We made connections & met lots of people who want to help! The events this weekend were a STUNNING SUCCESS!!!

*If you've never registered to vote in WA before, you can still do so in person at your county elections office. �Deadline is October 26.

Saturday in front of Macy's at the corner of 4th and Pine:

Josh talks a rickshaw driver through the voter registration process:

Seattle
Last Friday, Seattle Gay News printed Special Section: Approve Referendum 71 (pdf)

In this colorful Special Section, find articles on the status of the campaign and campaign happenings; what you can do to help Approve Ref. 71; and messages of active support and solidarity from our community, clergy, elected officials, candidates and businesses.

Issaquah
Issaquah celebrated Issaquah Salmon Days over the weekend, a prospect that two Approve 71 volunteers found irresistible.

We got great reception in Issaquah. �In just 2 hours the two of us handed out 900 palm cards! �Lots of people who knew about R-71 said they really appreciated us being there. �For people less well informed it was fun to see their faces light up with understanding as they looked at the card. �We educated A LOT of voters today. �Got a few eligible teens to register online too.

Kirkland
Bellevue PFLAG mom Wendy teamed up (and not for the first time) with Approve 71 to table together at the premiere of the documentary, Put This on the {Map}, a film "featuring 26 young people redefining gender and sexuality in Eastern King County." �Attendees were well-informed about Referendum 71 and took the opportunity to sign the Vote to Approve pledge, pick up R-71 posters and palm cards and talk to Wendy about PFLAG.

Vancouver
Rory Bowman in Vancouver has created the Approve 71 Vancouver blog to keep area Approve 71 advocates informed and engaged.

There's a lot of good folks working like the dickens down here.

reports Rory. �Everything from tabling at the farmers market to making presentations at the local church.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Who said making a donation has to be painful? �Two community-minded businesses, Purr Cocktail Lounge in Seattle and The Tempest in Tacoma, held fundraisers for Approve 71 this past weekend. �

Seattle �
Purr held an "APPROVE Ref.71" fundraising and awareness event called "Protect Your Rights". �Joe Mirabella at The Mighty Pen reports:

I spoke to Barbie Humphrey who owns the purr and sponsored the event. �She told me that when the community heard about her plan everyone wanted to chip in. �For example, Seattle Gay News provided free advertising.
Purr was packed with people. Some were even wearing the logo-ed green approve 71 campaign shirt available at http://www.approve71.org to show their support for domestic partnerships.
The event raised over $2000.00 from cash contributions and proceeds from Cocktail 71, a concoction of Absolute Citron Vodka, Champaigne, and deliciousness. �(Absolute gave Purr a deal on the Vodka by the way).
While the $2000.00 was helpful, the community awarness, and what campaign director Josh Friedes called "Friend Raising" may be even more valuable. �The community in Seattle and throughout the state is waking up to the fact that real families are in serious risk if domestic partnerships are taken away.

Tacoma �
The Tempest made use of its back lot and held and indoor-outdoor live band fundraising extravaganza. �Check out their Flikr photostream. �Tacoma volunteer Laurie Jinkins reports

We had 170 attendees and raised $7,730.12. �Almost $3,000 of it was raised when Kim Archer (of the Kim Archer Band) auctioned off her band for two events of the purchasers choice. �We added a few volunteers to our volunteer shifts and generally saw a lot of people we hadn't seen before. �Good work by all. �I'm off to Yakima.

Redmond
Microsoft Corporation made a small donation this past Friday. �Dominic Holden at SLOG reports

Asserting itself as a powerful advocate for gay rights, the Microsoft Corporation donated $100,000 to the campaign trying to approve Referendum 71, a report filed today with the state Public Disclosure Commission shows (.pdf). If voters approve the measure, they will uphold the state's domestic-partnership law, but a recent poll shows that only 51 percent of likely voters support the referendum.
This took guts. Microsoft's brazen role in R-71 will outrage the Ken Hutchersons of the world, who pressured Microsoft for years to back off from supporting gay-rights legislation. And it could also summon conservative interests--e.g., the Mormon Church--to dump money in on the other side. After October 12, state rules block any person or group from donating more than $5,000 to the campaign.

Other large employers and labor organizations in the state have made significant contributions too. �For example, Puget Sound Energy, $15,000; SEIU Washington State Council, $10,000; Vulcan Inc, $10,000; American Federation of Teachers Washington, $2,000; SEIU Healthcare 775NW, $2,000.

WHAT ELSE?

Did I miss anything? �Almost certainly! �There's so much happening that I know I'm only seeing a tiny slice of it. �Let me know what's happening in your corner of the state so I can incorporate it in the next update!

UPCOMING EVENTS

Phone Banks �Washington Families Standing Together needs YOU to sign up to phone bank. �This is how we lock in those valuable votes. �PB Locations: Bellingham, Ellensburg, Seattle, Tacoma, Tri-Cities, Your Livingroom.

Outreach �Washington Families Standing Together has organized an array of outreach activities across the state, including (but not limited to!) Washington Bus Parliament with Thee Satisfaction, Tabling in Seattle, a benefit concert in Yakima, screening of For my Wife in Spokane.

Hey Eastern Washington! �Equal Rights Washington is coming to you! �71 Hours to Approve 71 October 9th - 12th. �ERW embarks on "a 71-hour road trip to put the pedal to the metal on the Approve Referendum 71 campaign. Volunteers and advocates will be telling their stories about what domestic partnership rights and responsibilities mean to them. People who support Approve 71 will gather to raise funds, organize, educate voters, and get out the vote. There will be picnics, breakfasts, music, and a special screening of the award-winning film for my wife. Join us to help us get to our destination -- preserving the domestic partnership law by voting to Approve 71. "

October 6 in Vancouver: "Marriage Equality and Referendum 71" 7-9pm Carol McKinley of WA UU Voices for Justice will explain and encourage support for domestic partnerships in Washington state, from within the broader context of Marriage Equality.

October 10-11 in Seattle Approve Ref. 71 Seattle Bar Crawl. �"We will be:

Getting people excited, engaged, & thinking about Ref 71 and the importance of Approving to keep the domestic partnership benefits that were passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.
Reminding everyone to watch for their ballots starting Oct 16 & fill them out and mail right away.
Hand out signs, posters, flyers, stickers, etc.
Sign up volunteers for more bar crawls, phone banking, canvassing (door knocking), sign waving, events, etc.

We are targeting our core base of supporters for a reason. 17% of voters actually vote during off year elections (yes, less than 1/5 of voters!) & the average voter age is 59. There may be majority support for domestic partnership rights among WA residents, but THIS ELECTION WILL BE WON OR LOST ON VOTER TURNOUT. If we can get enough of the GLBT & straight ally community to actually fill out those ballots that may be all we need to win this battle!"

October 15 in Seattle: Approve Ref. 71 PARTY at The BottleNeck Lounge. �No cover! �100% of draft proceeds go to WAFST. �Special message from TBN: "Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!"

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Action News anchor Susan Hutchison reports on Tim Eyman's latest ballot initiative I-1033.

ThinkerFeeler — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:23:41 PDT

What Is Seattle Public Utilities Up To?

robespierrette — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:09:47 PDT

This all has to do with the not-very-sexy topic of Combined Sewer Overflow Control.

I recently found out from a neighbor that SPU is planning to dig up a brand-new parking lot, block part of a major arterial, and inconvenience several neighborhoods - and their stated reason is that doing this sewer project the way everyone (including SPU) agrees is the right way would take Federal permits. To which I say, "boo-hoo". I think costing us all an extra million dollars, and wrecking our neighborhood is a poor trade-off for making some bureaucrat's life easier.

Now, I will say up-front that much of the information I have on this is "hear-say", but that's only because so few of the public were notified of the "public" meetings that were held. If I'd gotten a notice, trust me, I would have been there! The only concrete thing I have is an Agenda hand-out, and a direct account from one of the attendees. . . but what I've got is enough to sound some big alarm bells for me.

The details - as far as I can figure out:

Seattle Public Utilities is under orders from the EPA to mitigate combined sewer overflows into Lake Washington. The order calls on them to have a plan in place by 2012, and to have work completed by 2020 (plenty of time to obtain permits, I would think). In the View Ridge/Hawthorne Hills/Windermere neighborhoods, almost all houses have their gutters piped into the wastewater line, instead of the storm-drain system - causing untreated sewage to overflow whenever there are heavy rains. A sensible strategy would be to replumb lots of those gutters into the storm drains, but that would involve individual property owners (God forbid!). So, they've decided they need to keep treating roof runoff like sewage, and instead dig a TWO MILLION GALLON underground storage tank and pumping station, costing tens of millions of dollars. And they've picked - without public input - a really stupid place to put it. And they're in a rush to do it now, despite having a 2020 deadline.

According to the report I received, they started looking at five "possible" sites, some more rational than others (one would have ripped out 5 blocks of the Burke-Gilman Trail - a section that has just had several years of community volunteer work to remove invasive plants, and put in native vegetation, with grants from the City!). The preferred spot - by SPU's own admission - is the empty lot at the corner of Sand Point Way and NE 65th Street, in the corner of Magnuson Park. It's empty, has off-the-main-street access for heavy machinery and trucks, and would have minimal impact on the the environment and neighborhood - it's just a big grassy lawn, and there's plenty of space.

But that would be too easy - and would cost $1,000,000 less! Instead, they want to rip out the entire recently-completed parking lot of the Center for Spiritual Living on Sand Point Way (a space that is a fraction the size of the empty lawn). The CSL just completed the new parking lot and sanctuary over the last couple of years, and the neighborhood was very happy to have that over and done with - it was disruptive enough! And we were all glad that CSL now had enough space to keep their attendees from parking out in the neighborhood. CSL also provide weekday parking for Children's Hospital employees - who have a shuttle bus that runs back and forth. The CSL also improved the public right-of-way through their parking lot, adding a ramp - since it's the route to the closest Metro bus stop for all the folks living just uphill from them.

In order to do the project on the CSL site, SPU will need to park all the heavy equipment and dirt-hauling trucks out on Sand Point Way for the duration - there's no extra space on-site. The Children's Hospital employees' parking will be displaced, as well as all the CSL attendees. Neighborhood access to Sand Point Way, and the Metro bus stop, will be cut off. And a neighborhood that just lived through a huge construction project will get treated to another one - even more disruptive than the last!

SPU claims that they mailed postcards about their "public" meetings to everyone living within the View Ridge/Laurelhurst/SandPoint district, but we have so far only encountered one person who actually received one, and they live well north of NE 65th Street - well away from the proposed project zones. A few folks affiliated with the Hawthorne Hills Community Council became aware of the meetings through other means, but thought they were the "only ones" not to get notified - I have all my information about this from one of these very few attendees. Both meetings drew only around a dozen people, from a well-organized and active neighborhood - which says all we need to know about the effectiveness of SPU's notification plan.

These supposedly-public meetings, however, were just for "announcing" their plan - they were not asking for comment about the siting of the project, just "project design". The one attendee I talked to reported to me that the SPU project manager, a Mr. Tom Fawthrop, acted like "a bully", and "belittled" the few neighbors who were there, for asking questions! It seems pretty odd that SPU can dig a hole the size of a sports field, with less scrutiny than a homeowner who wants to enlarge their garage.

There is nothing about this project posted on their website - not their "public meetings", nor their decisions.

If anyone knows a reporter or media person, SPU says that media inquiries should be directed to:
SPU Media Relations at 684-7688.

I would appreciate any suggestions for people to talk to, ways to get more information more quickly from the City, etc!

Free Documentary Screening of Copyright Criminals about Hip Hop Sampling

CommunityCinemaSeattle — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:07:53 PDT

The screening at SIFF Cinema is open to the public and there is no charge to attend. �The film will be introduced by KUBE 93 FM DJ Hyphen who will take a few questions. �Then following the film, we'll discuss possible ways in which ownership of a sound can be determined. �The event is open to the public and all are welcome.

SEATTLE PREMIERE OF FILM ABOUT OLD SKOOL HIP HOP AND SAMPLING

As new technologies emerge (almost everyday), enabling everyone to be a music producer, can anyone really own a sound? Computers, software and even cell phones have radically altered our relationship to mass culture and technology, providing consumers with the tools to become producers, or "remixers," of their own media. But long before everyday people began posting their video mash-ups on the Web, hip-hop musicians perfected the art of audio montage through a sport they called "sampling." COPYRIGHT CRIMINALS, a documentary by Benjamin Franzen and Kembrew McLeod, examines the creative and commercial value of musical sampling, including the ongoing debates about artistic expression, copyright law and (of course) money.

The ITVS/PBS Discussion Guide (PDF, 240K) is available online at:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/copyright-criminals/getinvolved.html

Community Cinema Seattle is presented by KCTS9 Television Seattle, KBCS 91.3 FM Community Radio, The City of Seattle Office for Civil Rights, the Seattle International Film Festival, The Future of Music Coalition, and KUBE 93 FM.

WHAT: � Seattle premiere of COPYRIGHT CRIMINALS
WHEN: � Saturday, October 10 at 3PM
WHERE: �SIFF Cinema, 321 Mercer Street, Seattle, 98109
WHO: � �ITVS, KCTS, KBCS FM, SOCR, SIFF, & KUBE
HOW: � �Free. For more information visit http://communitycinemaseattle.org/

We encourage our audience to walk, bike, and take public transportation to our events. �Seattle Center IS Seattle's cultural center. �Consider riding Metro or the Link Right Rail and/or the monorail. How fun?! Parking in the adjacent garage connected by the skybridge can be pricy but OH so convenient. �Street parking exists within a block or 3 to the north and east.

The Community Cinema program offers free community engagement events following cutting edge indie documentaries in over 50 cities every month. Share and connect...
http://communitycinema.org/
http://communitycinemaseattle.org/
http://facebook.com/communitycinema
http://www.flickr.com/photos/communitycinema/
http://twitter.com/communitycinema
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/

A day in the life of the Approve Referendum 71 campaign

Lurleen — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:23:40 PDT

Your correspondent hit the Approve Referendum 71 campaign trail Saturday. �Here is her account of that epic day. �And these were just the events she was aware of...

8:15 a.m. - The day began bright and early at the annual fall book sale hosted by the Friends of the Seattle Public Library. �Doors wouldn't open until 9 a.m., but by the time of my arrival the line of eager buyers had already wrapped clear 'round to the back of the giant former airplane hangar.

Two straight senior allies and their lesbian neighbor made up the Approve 71 volunteer crew. �This was their 2nd day of action. �By the time they wrapped up their effort at noon on Sunday, they had handed out 2,000 palm cards to interested voters and gave the Approve 71 campaign visibility during the highest trafficked hours of the book sale. �They were well received by folks in line who often took the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. �

This was a volunteer-initiated event. �As I would observe throughout the day, the campaign encourages volunteers to create opportunities for visibility and fundraising all over the state. �This makes the campaign a great mix of some paid staff and thousands of volunteers who help expand the reach in all sorts of cool ways while keeping staff overhead modest.

11:30 a.m. - Off to the UFCW Local 21 phone bank.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 21 are generously lending the Approve 71 campaign their phone banking facilities every Saturday afternoon. �If you've ever phone banked using the makeshift set-ups common in campaign offices, you would have swooned along with me at the sight of this well-appointed facility. �

Most volunteers were being trained when I arrived. �The old pros had already jumped right to the phones. �To my eye there were enough volunteers present to fill the 40 or so calling stations. �Coordinating events were several local volunteers and the amazing Adrian Matanza, loaned to the Approve 71 campaign from HRC.

12:15 p.m. - An invite to a far-flung fundraiser.

Just as I was thinking lunch might be a good idea, I got a call inviting me to join a fundraiser in Tacoma. �This required a mad dash home to change costume, wolf down some lunch and meet my ride back at the campaign office at 2:15. �Arriving there at the same time was Josh Castle to pick up materials for his voter registration and visibility event planned for the next day. �After loading Josh up with supplies, we hit the road.

Oh but first, a look ahead at Josh Castle's Sunday event, which was another volunteer-initiated event. �Another example of the Approve 71 campaign providing resources for grassroots activists who take personal responsibility and lift the campaign onto their own shoulders. �

Look at this great visibility on a busy core-city intersection. �And great interaction with passers-by who were honking their horns and stopping to ask for signs and information.

Love this t-shirt! �Pictured center waving the Approve Ref. 71 sign is candidate for Seattle City Council, David Bloom.

3:30 p.m. - Tacoma fundraiser house party.

I don't get out of Seattle enough. �I know this now because in Tacoma I met a house full of the most amazing straight allies. �The event was organized by campaign volunteers and local LGBT activists Benjii Bittle, Kim Burke, Laurie Jinkins and Ryan Mello. �Among those present were a retired editor from The News Tribune, the executive director of the local housing coalition, the v.p. of the health department, former chief of staff for the county executive, the retired city manager for the City of Tacoma, Tacoma mayoral candidates Marilyn Strickland (right, with Approve 71 campaign manager Josh Friedes) and Jim Merritt (left), long-time legislative leader on LGBT rights Rep. Jeannie Darneille and the executive director of Associated Ministries of Pierce County.

The group had a simple message to send:

"Pierce County says Approve Referendum 71!"

This being a fundraiser, this bunch didn't just make a fun video. �They contributed over $18,000 to help broadcast the message to t.v. audiences that ALL Washington families deserve equal protection. �Now is the time to be making media buys, and you can't make media buys on credit. �It takes hard cash. �Tacoma is literally putting its money where its mouth is.

Meanwhile, back in Seattle...a little thing called the 23rd Annual Seattle AIDS Walk was underway. �An estimated 2,500 people participated, including Approve 71 volunteers and allies, and others who should be. ;)

6:30 p.m. - Back in Seattle for HRC's Annual Pacific Northwest 10th Anniversary Dinner.
To say the evening exceeded expectations would be an understatement. �The local HRC steering committee put their heart and soul into making this dinner a success not just for HRC, but for the Approve 71 campaign as well. �Speaker after speaker talked about how important it is to approve Referendum 71. �Included among them was Arlington, WA native and Congressperson Rick Larsen (D-WA 2nd), who spoke passionately for approval. �Then, right before the "raise the paddle" auction began, Approve 71 Chair Anne Levinson spoke. �

I guess she knows how to bring it home, because the raise the paddle ask raised $71,000, and every penny goes to the Approve 71 campaign. �Donations ranged from $50 to $5,000, with an incredible number of individuals donating $1,000. �Not only has HRC lent their staff person Adrian Matanza to the Approve 71 campaign, they just gave the campaign a timely infusion of cash. �With people coming together like this, perhaps we can raise the remaining necessary one million dollars after all.

Meanwhile, east of the Cascades...
...the Washington State Democratic Central Committee was having their quarterly meeting in Walla Walla. �They passed a formal resolution calling for the Approval of Referendum 71. �Numerous democratic legislators and county committees had already endorsed the campaign or passed similar resolutions. �Washington State Stonewall Democrats, one of the over 200 organizations and congregations who make up the Approve 71 coalition have taken the lead with organizing Democrats. They even had a hospitality suite at the Walla Walla meeting.

And these were just the events your correspondent was aware of on Saturday. �Can you imagine what else was happening across the state? �What an inspiring (and exhausting) day. �People are coming together. �We can do this!

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Washington newspapers: Approve Referendum 71

Lurleen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:01:48 PDT

Editorial support for domestic partnerships has been strong and unwavering since the domestic partnership debate began. �Back in May I had the pleasure of reporting that among local Washington newspapers posting an editorial about Washington registered domestic partnerships, every one of them unequivocally supported domestic partnerships. �Those newspapers were from Central Kitsap County, Everett, Federal Way, Kent, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Walla Walla, Wenatchee and Yakima.

On September 2nd, Referendum 71 was certified for the November 3rd statewide ballot. �Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. �Washington newspapers have not skipped a beat; newspapers from Everett, Federal Way, Long Beach, Seattle and Vancouver have renewed their advice to voters: Approve Referendum 71. �More are sure to come.

Yesterday Seattle times posted this, the most recent among the editorials. �Read, enjoy, and heed the warnings.

Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support
A broad coalition of community support has rallied behind voter approval of Referendum 71, to extend legal rights and responsibilities to all Washington families.
THE campaign to affirm the legal rights and responsibilities of all Washington families has attracted an impressive coalition of support.
Approval of Referendum 71 has been endorsed by the region's largest employers, civic groups, a spectrum of religious organizations, business and professional associations, labor unions and good-government groups.
All are drawn to the equal treatment for families at the heart of R-71, which will be on the November ballot. The measure seeks approval for a law already passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire.
Senate Bill 5688 gives registered domestic partners the benefits, obligations and responsibilities that apply to traditional marriages. This is about a relationship between couples and their families and the state -- all the various legal connections that interplay when couples establish households and raise families.
Passage of the referendum requires an affirmative vote. Supporters of equitable treatment for all Washington families must fill in their ballot to approve R-71.
Among those calling for approval are Boeing, Microsoft, Nike, Puget Sound Energy, RealNetworks and Vulcan Development. Other endorsements have come from The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington State Bar Association and the Washington Association of Churches. Endorsements cover the state and cross the mountains.
As impressive as the coalition is for passage of R-71, it is no substitute for a strong turnout during an off-year election. An array of endorsements reinforces the importance of this thoughtful extension of the state's domestic-partnership law. Adoption of R-71 is still grounded in casting votes to approve its passage.

Approve Referendum 71 editorials in Washington newspapers since September 1, 2009:

Everett: Reaffirm law for fairness. �Everett Herald, September 11, 2009

Federal Way: Jeers to the Family Policy Institute of Washington for inflicting its dogma of intolerance upon this state. Federal Way Mirror, September 11, 2009

Long Beach: Editorial: Actually, vote yes on R-71. Chinook Observer, September 16, 2009

Seattle: Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support. Seattle Times, September 24, 2009

Seattle: R-71, mark `approved' to support the domestic-partnership bill. Seattle Times, September 14, 2009

Seattle: Affirm the legal rights behind Referendum 71. Seattle Times, Tuesday, September 1, 2009.

Vancouver: Protect Minority. R-71 battle begs the question: Should civil rights be up for a vote?. Columbian, September 6, 2009

By the way, Letters to the Editor in support of Approve Referendum 71 are also rolling in. �This is a large topic for another time, but just to give you a taste of the broad scope of support readers from across the state are expressing, here's a small sample.

Letters to the Editor
The News Tribune | Thursday, September 24, 2009
R-71: Vote to dismantle unjust prejudice
As a fair-minded and educated individual, I want to tell the community at large about the necessity to approve Referendum 71. -- Mary C. Otterness, Federal Way
Kitsap Sun | Wednesday, September 23, 2009
R-71 Isn't Just a Gay Issue
Lest the debate on retaining Washington's domestic partnership law be hijacked by side issues typified by that inflammatory euphemism, "sexual preferences," we must remember that, in this case, the phase "domestic partnerships" applies to any loving, committed couple that for cultural reasons (if they are of the same gender), or financial reasons (if they are straight and one partner is at least 62 years old), cannot enjoy the benefits of a legal marriage. -- Nancy Frank, Bremerton
The Daily Evergreen | Monday, September 21, 2009
Referendum 71 is about more than gay marriage
While I applaud Peter Wagner's column encouraging the approval of Referendum 71, I think it's important for people to think not only about this law in terms of the couples, but in terms of families as well. -- Dustin Hall, Pullman
South Whidbey Record | Monday, September 14, 2009
[Rejection of] Referendum 71 will bring collateral damage
In the waging of war, we call it collateral damage. In the politics of plebiscites we call it the law of unintended consequences. -- Hal Seligson, Langley
Columbian | Sunday, September 20, 2009
Two ballot issues are important
I believe in health care reform because all people -- not just the lucky ones -- should have access to basic health care...A "No" vote on Referendum 71 would reject this year's extended gay-rights* legislation and take away critical rights, including some related to health care, from thousands of families. I urge a "Yes" vote on Referendum 71. - Allie Denny, Vancouver Ed. note: Heterosexual seniors in domestic partnerships were also extended those critical rights.
The Olympian | Friday, September 18, 2009
*Referendum 71 is all about fairness
I have been a lifetime Washingtonian. Though I have traveled the world, this is the state my family has called home since the 1850s. I am a conservative. I work hard and believe everyone should work and earn their way. I have a strong belief in God and enjoy a country that provides freedom for our religious beliefs. -- Nola Leyde, Yelm
Bellingham Herald | Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Calls for support of Referendum 71
Please vote to approve Referendum 71. I'm not sure why anyone would oppose it. It is not about gay marriage. In fact, it's really not about gay anything. -- Marti Leviel, Bellingham
The News Tribune | Sunday, September 13, 2009
R-71: Gay rights allies must not be silent
To paraphrase Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good citizens do nothing." In the face of the latest fear-based initiative to strip away human rights from gay men and lesbian women (Referendum 71), it is time for all allies of gays and lesbians to stand up. -- E. Duane Wilkerson, Executive Director Pierce County AIDS Foundation
Everett Herald | Saturday, September 12, 2009
Vote yes to keep law, protections
I love Edmonds. I have lived here for over 40 years and the last 20 with my life partner. We own our home, and we have great neighbors, two dogs and a cat. -- Melissa Barran & Jo Ann Hartline, Edmonds
Columbian | Saturday, September 12, 2009
Referendum 71
Discrimination means you are all alone in the world. You are a Jew in 1940 Germany, a black person in 1890 Mississippi, a Christian in Iraq, or a married gay couple in California (the victims of Proposition 8). -- Larry Little, Vancouver
Seattle Times | Monday, September 7, 2009
For the love of families, support extended partnership rights
Thanks for your editorial in support of all Washington families ["Basic fairness, equality for Washington families," editorial, Sept. 2]. To voters who would deny me and my family equal rights, I'm not afraid to let you know who I am. -- Cathie Bachy, Seattle
Seattle Times | Monday, September 7, 2009
A loving home, a life among discrimination
I will be voting to approve Referendum 71 to provide legal protections for couples and families like mine. My same-sex wife -- we were married in Canada -- and I are raising two children. Our son is a special-needs child, and our daughter is an honor student who will be a high-school junior this year. -- Nancy Suppe, Bothell
Seattle Times | Friday, September 4, 2009
Washington is a place of equality
I was elated to read your editorial ["Basic fairness, equality for Washington families," Opinion, Sept. 2] encouraging voters to approve Referendum 71, upholding the domestic-partnership law, when it comes to the ballot this fall. -- Tucker Cholvin, Snohomish
Seattle Times | Thursday, September 3, 2009
Washington led for women's rights, now for gay rights
I support Referendum 71. It is fair and correct to affirm the rights of Washington's gay and lesbian families. The United States Constitution was written for the people, not just married people, not just single people. For everybody. -- Scott Leopold, Everett
Seattle Times | Thursday, September 3, 2009
My marriage doesn't need saving from same-sex `threat'
For the life of me, I cannot conceive of how marriage between two people of the same gender could be of any threat to my 50-year marriage; it doesn't need any "defense of marriage" group's help. -- Martin Paup, Seattle
Bellingham Herald | Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Asks for `yes' vote on Referendum 71
There are a lot of views and information out there in regards to our state's domestic partnership rules and the fight for Referendum 71, yet I think many people are confused and misinformed. So I thought I'd try to help people understand it: It is not marriage, while people may believe and say it is, it's not marriage and one can't go into a church or visit city hall to get a license and have a "legally recognized" ceremony. -- Nick Milhoan, Bellingham

Cross-posted at Pam's House Blend.

Join us to Protest the Lies and Distortions of Glenn Beck!

burningbush — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:14:30 PDT

The King County Democrats will lead a coalition of organizations in a rally against Fox News and Glenn Beck's lies and distortions.

NO KEYS TO THE CITY AWARDED HERE !!

Saturday September 26, 2009

PROTEST

11:30 am-12:30 pm

West side of street across from Safeco Field in Seattle
(1250 1st Avenue)

Rosemary Blackwell-KCDCC Team Captain
( signs and buttons will be available )

Call 425.255.2679 for more details

Washington Constitution requires petition signers to be registered voters

Lurleen — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:42:55 PDT

An editorial in today's The News Tribune (Tacoma) has, with all due respect, completely missed the mark. �

Washington Families Standing Together is challenging the certification of Referendum 71 for the ballot based, in part, on the Secretary of State's decision to ignore voter registration date as a potential reason to reject a signature on the Referendum 71 petition.

The editorial misunderstands the position of WAFST regarding simultaneous petition signing and voter registration. �I've been reading WAFST's court filings, and WAFST isn't opposing people signing and registering on the same day. �Rather, the concern is this: Signature gatherers who collect voter registration cards are required by law to turn them in to the state within 5 days. �With a petition deadline of July 25th, this means the latest registration date that should have been acceptable was July 30th. �Yet the Secretary of State was accepting any signature from a voter registered as late as the last day of checking, September 2nd, a full month in excess of constitutional limits. �

The state Constitution requires that petition signers be registered voters. �The Secretary of State, in accepting any signatures of people with a voter registration date after July 30th, is acting unconstitutionally. �According to court filings, he instructed his employees to follow this unconstitutional path and erroneously accept signatures of people would couldn't possibly have registered to vote on or before the day they signed the petition.

The Next Big Fight

Farcaster — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:07:46 PDT

Headlines of late have been dominated by the debate over health care reform, but there is another big battle looming in Congress and all of the political dynamics that have made health care such a minefield will come into play when the Senate takes up the issue of how to address global warming and achieve energy independence.

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised strong leadership in the fight for health care for all Americans. As President, Obama has sometimes stated that a public option is central to real health care reform. But while single payer advocates watched in horror from the sidelines, Obama indicated that a public option was not "essential" and could be held in abeyance depending on the good behavior of the insurance industry. Similarly, Candidate Obama's call for a clean energy future has rung hollow in the ears of progressives when early concessions were made to the coal and oil industries in the first bill to be approved by either house in Congress to address climate change.

The Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454), also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), will serve as the starting point for the climate debate in the Senate. The House approved the bill on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212, and just as with health care reform, a Democratic majority was no guarantee of passage, with no less than 44 Democrats, including many from coal-producing states, voting `No'. Passage would not have been possible without eight Republicans who voted in favor of the bill.

Local Note to Reichert Watchers: Dave Reichert (R. WA-8) was one of the 8 House Republicans who voted for H.R. 2454. But before you give the ex-sheriff kudos for his political bravery and dedication to environmental protection, you should know that before the bill passed, Reichert voted for an amendment to kill the bill by replacing it in its entirety with H.R. 513, aka the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, a series of multi-million dollar prizes for energy-related inventions. Seems like Dave was against the bill before he was for it.

The Waxman bill does get some things right, but it misses the mark on others. The long-term emissions limit (cap greenhouse gas emissions at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050) agrees with limits suggested by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), but the short term limits are not aggressive enough to make the long term goals achievable. UCS calls for a cap at 35% below 2005 levels by 2020 while the bill targets only 17%.

Emissions reductions are to be accomplished by implementing a cap and trade policy. Under such a policy, the government sets overall caps on carbon, and then sells allowances to industries that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The bill provides that funds collected by the government be used to provide rebates to economically disadvantaged consumers to protect them from the increased cost of re-tooling necessary to achieve lower emissions. Unfortunately, this provision of the bill has been severely weakened by literally giving away as much as 85% of the allowances to coal and oil industries for the first decade, deincentivizing carbon reduction. This is not cap and trade any more than a public insurance option is a single payer health care system. And just as a weak public option is worse than no health care reform, a weak cap and trade policy is worse than no carbon emission control program. This is true because passage of these kinds of half measures allow politicians to claim victory and stop working for real change.

Among other concessions to the coal industry, allowances for carbon capture and sequestration are made available, despite the fact that this technology is unproven and likely to be economically unfeasible. And while new power plants must meet more stringent standards for emissions, modifications to existing coal-fired plants that would result in increased emissions might not be subject to the same limitations. For no apparent reason, this bill removes the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon as a pollutant. Strong regulatory powers must be identified in any Senate bill closing loopholes such as these and ensuring that polluting industries are not able to game the system just as we should insist on accountability and oversight of the financial and insurance markets.

Waxman-Markey does provide for a 20% renewable energy standard, mandating that at least 20% of the electricity generated in the U.S. come from renewable sources (the UCS calls for 25%), making possible loans and loan guarantees for development of new businesses and the new jobs they will create. Here again, concessions are being made, classifying trash incineration as "renewable" energy ignoring the fact that it contributes many types of harmful emissions to the atmosphere. Instead, we should include only truly clean renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and plant and animal waste. Taking the lead in these markets is crucial for our economy, as we can be certain that other countries will take advantage of our failure to act, just as the Japanese car makers have benefited from the failure of U.S. automakers to produce fuel efficient cars.

Implementing a strong policy to limit the effects of heat-trapping gases will put the U.S. in a much stronger position in the negotiations to be held at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. If we do not give away the entire cap and trade auction revenue to King Coal, we can allocate more of those funds for the preservation of tropical rainforests, and there is no other single step that will have more global benefits in the overall reduction of greenhouse gases than preserving the rainforests.

As with health care reform, we will have to combat lies and the lying liars who tell them (apologies to our newest Senator). The New American calls ACES "yet another massive intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans and the profitable operation of American businesses" and warns conservatives that campaigns by "environmental extremists are being joined with the machinations of the Washington elites in a pincer movement that threatens what remains of our economy." Getting the facts will dispel these rumors. The EPA points out in their report that the cap and trade policy proposed by Waxman-Markey will have a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers since the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to households. Not all environmentalists are enthusiastic (or extremist) about the bill, and it does have support from a broad range of people and organizations, including Al Gore, the United Auto Workers, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and DuPont. With respect to the impact on the economy, Paul Krugman points out that "a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities." And new investment in clean energy means new sources of profits for American businesses.

When Congress is back for the fall session, the Senate must correct the failings of the Waxman bill and enact legislation that will provide genuine incentives for development of a new, green economy. Senators will have to look beyond the walls of the Senate chamber and listen to their constituents, not just to the vested interests of corporations making billions from dirty fossil fuels. As with health care, you and I must make our voices heard by calling and emailing our Senators and holding rallies in support of policies that move us toward a future where we use clean, renewable sources of energy, creating jobs for the coming generations and ensuring nothing less than the survival of life on Planet Earth.