Public forum on state, local ballot measures Wednesday night
Posted By David Wickert on September 28, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Share this
The Tacoma Public Library and the League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County will sponsor a public forum on several ballot measures Wednesday night.
News Tribune columnist Peter Callaghan will moderate a discussion of the following issues:
• Initiative 1033, which would cap the growth of state and local government general fund revenue, based on an annual rate of inflation and population growth.
• Referendum 71, which would expand domestic partnership benefits for gay couples in Washington.
• Pierce County Charter Amendment 1, which would move elections for county executive and council to odd-numbered years by 2015 and increase term limits for those offices from two consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive terms.
• Pierce County Charter Amendment 2, which would move election for auditor, assessor-treasurer and sheriff to odd-numbered years by 20105.
• Pierce County Charter Amendment 3, which would eliminate ranked choice voting and restore the primary and general election system for all county elected offices.
The forum will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the Olympic Room of the Main Library, 1102 Tacoma Ave. S.
For information on why voters should REJECT Charter Amendment 1, see http://www.PierceCountyTermLimits.org
BTW - the T-PC Chamber board of directors voted to REJECT Charter Amendments 1 & 2. Read about it here..
Please also read the arguments in favor of the three reform measures:
http://www.pcbgl.org
A better county government is possible when we approve 1, 2 and 3.
Alex Hays
President, Pierce County Better Government League
One area to clarify:
A vote to "approve" 3 is a vote to restore the "top-two" primary.
In 2006 advocates of RCV claimed they were repealing the "pick-a-party" primary. This was false, and even misleading as the actual effect of adopting RCV was to prevent Pierce County from using the "top-two" primary.
If you read the VP statement in favor of RCV you could again think that the "pick-a-party" is the alternative to RCV and this would again be false.
Like most folks I strongly preferred Washington's traditional primary system and support the "top two" as the constitutional alternative that is most like our beloved blanket primary.
Top Two is a another horrible alternative that eliminates all third party candidates from the political discussion before you get to the general election. Sadly enough it can turn what is basically a two party system (due to the rules) into a one party running against itself. Having two Dems or Reps running in the general election is not my idea of choice.
"Restore" is a weasel term for eliminate what the voters put in place more than once and those in power did everything they could to avoid and torpedo.
Blamed the delay in election results on it because the Auditor didn't have the count done fast enough. Because some people feel the need to know the results of an election before all the votes are even in. Instant gratification... NOTHING in law required those votes to be counted any faster than they were. NO elected officials were delayed in entering office on the appointed day,
The RCV programming is in place, RCV can save millions.. The Auditor is trying to close polling places to save $150K (lets see the cost analysis), yet the Council is pushing for MORE elections (Odd years and primaries) that cost millions a pop.
Only reason I can see for the repeated push is to maintain a lock on the process by the incumbents... both on the voters attention and on the donors.
VOTE NO
Alex Hays,
If the alternative to Instant Runoff Voting is the Top Two, why didn't the Council say so in their amendment? Why didn't the council say put language in that specifically says we will have the Top Two?
Some incontrovertible facts are:
A) The Council's Amendment language lists the replacement for Instant Runoff Voting as being "the state election system."
B) The "the state election system" is currently "Top Two"
C) The political parties are currently suing the state of Washington to invalidate the "Top Two" election system.
D) The political parties lawsuit uses language that would re-instate the "previous election system"
E) The "previous election system" is "Pick-a-Party"
F) Even if the political parties have indeed learned their lesson (and i am not convinced they fully have), and they never try to reinstate "Pick-a-Party", the "the state election system" language will hand control of our election process to Olympia - where we will be subject to whatever scheme that group of politicians dreams up next.
If you support the Top Two, you should have argued to make Top Two the law in Pierce County, instead the Council is trying to hand control of our election system back to Olympia.
jte
Charter Amendment 2, if enacted, won't be put into force until the year 20105? That should give us plenty of time to prepare.
Lets keep score on the group pushing to pass the PC Charter amendments called of all things the Pierce County Better Government League (do the Wonder Twins belong to this group....Wonder Twin Powers, Activate!), located at a P.O. box so be careful if you send cash.
Mark Lindquist, Pierce County Prosecutor
League Co-Chair - appointed PC Prosecutor by the current PC Council which has a majority of Republicans running the show, is also on the team writing the Pro side of the ballot statement for PC Charter Amend 1 extending PC council term limits (if that is not a slick deal, I don’t know what is).
Shawn Bunney, Republican Pierce County Councilmember
League Co-Chair - lost to Pat McCarthy in a bitter race, voted to push PC Charter 1 so he can have four more years on PC Council and the League likes to give Bunney money (read below).
Rick Talbert, Tacoma City Councilmember - claims to be a Democrat but seems to be the Democrat that supports Rep so they can claim to be non-partisan, former Aide to PC Councilman Bunney, gave Bunney $200 for his Exec race and is a current employee at PC.
Dick Muri, Republican Pierce County Councilmember - voted to push PC Charter 1 so he can have four more years on PC Council, running against Cong Adam Smith Dem because Dick thinks "It is time Congress is fiscally responsible, open, honest, and held accountable for their actions".
Jim Waldo - Gorton, Thomas, Honeywell Lawyer, former Republican candidate for Governor, gave $200 to Bunney for Exe Race but Waldo's wife Sharon the homemaker gave $1,500 (I guess we know who has the check book in this family), 1st Vice Chair of the Mainstream Republicans (see below).
Alex Hays, League President - was paid $4,785 to work on Bunney's PC Exec race, has a few businesses filed with the Sec of States office, Republican Political Consultant, Exec. Dir. of the Mainstream Republican (kind of like the moderate liberal from what I read about them).
All of these gentlemen (all men) are either attorneys, attorneys and a politician or just a politician. No teachers, Nurses, Doctors, Fireman, CEOs... are you getting the picture here folks. These people are going to make "Better Government" for PC. Sleep well tonight and God bless America!
John,
Several responses:
1. The state parties' lawsuit is baseless and will fail. The top-two is constitutional and the only people claiming otherwise are a) RCV advocates trying to scare people and b) hard core partisans who refuse to accept reality.
2. RCV advocates – Fair Vote -- have joined the suit on the side of the parties. Please explain what appears to be a serious case of hypocrisy. Your colleagues are right now arguing that the federal courts should overturn the top-two.
3. I did not author Amendment 3 and I see no evidence of any conspiracy to promote the pick-a-party. I have a long a well documented history of opposing the parties’ lawsuit and working for the blanket primary and top-two primary.
4. In my opinion, and I accept you disagree, allowing several co-existing primary systems is needlessly complex and harms democracy. It also increases elections costs. Better to have one uniform system for all offices county, state and federal.
In terms of costs:
The claims that RCV saves money is absolutely false.
1. RCV does not eliminate any election in Washington State
2. RCV increases the cost of counting ballots considerably
3. Even if county candidates aren’t on the primary ballot the election must still be held, and tax payers still pay for it. Any “savings” to one jurisdiction just increases the cost of the election for the remaining jurisdictions on the ballot. RCV robs Peter to pay Paul and calls it a savings. In truth tax payers pay more because of the increased costs of using RCV.
Best, Alex
Mr Hays,
I cant find your League on the Public Disclosure Commission web site. I will have to call them in the morning to clarify.
Will you be raising and spending any money to make Better Government in PC?
Or is it more of a figure head group?
Mr Hays,
I found your League on the Public Disclosure Commission but you are listed as a SINGLE YEAR Political Committee. I guess it only takes one year for Better Government to take place in PC. Sorry about that.
Mr. Knowles,
In terms of the PDC issue: we filed as a single year committee at the request of the commission. Our original preference was to file as a continuing committee, but because the PDC argued that it met a higher standard for disclosure to file as a ballot measure committee.
I also invite you to refute our arguments and positions -- your long post above offers no argument and is instead attacks my character and the character of those who lead our organization. All of whom are good people with records of public service and political moderation.
I believe ideas are more powerful than insinuation and would rather engage you in civil discourse than be forced to ignore your posts.
PDC Link for you rookies - http://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/default.aspx?docid=1601752
The League even hired a Professional to file their PDC forms, CAM Consulting but from Centralia, that is not even supporting PC businesses...
Colleen Morse’s (CAM Consulting) Specialties:
Federal election and Washington State public disclosure reporting for campaigns, committees and political actions committees, former US Cong. Metcalf Republican staffer.
Mr. Hays,
I am not an attorney and am not going to turn dirt with a professional grave digger so write all you want and push the blame on someone else. I want people to be educated beyond your fancy spin, smoke and mirrors. You didn't live in PC back in the days corruption was neck deep thanks to PC Politicians that were self serving power hungry fools and I am not even talking about the loons in office today, Republican or Democrat.
Mr. Hayes,
I've been asking a few questions around, and no one has answered them yet. Since my questions are regarding your employment as the campaign manager of 1, 2 and 3, I assume you can, and will answer them.
1) When were you first asked to manage the 1, 2, 3 campaign?
2) Who asked you to manage the campaign?
3) How much are you being paid to manage the campaign?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
Stacy Emerson
Mr. Hayes,
Some responses to your responses...
1.Even if the parties lawsuit does fail, as it should, the fact remains that through their continued pursuit of this lawsuit the State parties have demonstrated a vehement dislike of Top Two, and will do whatever they can to have it thrown out. The County Council's Amendment 3 proposes to relinquishes control of our election process to the partisans in Olympia. When the parties eventually succeed in discarding Top Two (whether through the judicial or the legislative branches), we will be saddled with whatever their next scheme is to control ballot access.
We did not go through all the trouble of becoming a home rule county so that the County Council could give control back to Olympia.
2) I did not know that Fair Vote had joined the suit on the side of the parties. 3 minutes spent with google informs me that Fair Vote filed an amicus arguing that Ranked Choice Voting was a better system than either Top Two or the Montana style primary (AKA as Pick-a-Party). How is that hipocracy?
3. Though you did not author the Amendment, you are president of an organization that is trying to hand control of our election process to someone else. That just doesn't make any sense for Pierce County voters.
4. If this were an argument only about costs, we would abandon the Top Two system in a heartbeat - by adopting Ranked Choice Voting for all offices we would cut the costs of elections in half at once.
But in this argument cost is the red herring. This is an argument about whether the people get to decide who is on the ballot, or whether the Top Two political parties get to hoard that decision. Political insiders hate RCV because it takes away their control of general election ballot access.
For information on why you should reject all three charter amendments, please visit:
http://www.RejectAll3.com
Referendum 71 is for heterosexual senior citizens also. About 1,000 heterosexual seniors are in domestic partnerships! Approve71.org
The Domestic Partnership Law was passed by the Legislature to ensure that all Washington families are treated the same, with the same protections, the same rights and the same responsibilities as their neighbors. Domestic partnerships are available to opposite-sex couples where one or both partners is age 62 or older, and to same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships help ensure that all families are treated equally under state law.
Why do seniors need the protection of domestic partnerships? Often seniors who are widowed or divorced will suffer serious economic hardship if they re-
marry. Under Social Security, there is a ‘marriage penalty’ where seniors’ benefits are put in peril if they re-marry. For example, women who spent their working years as homemakers or in traditionally lower wage jobs often have to rely on a former spouse’s work history to receive Social Security benefits because benefits are generally based on 30 years of paid work experience. But if a senior re-marries after a divorce, she will no longer be able to rely on her former spouse’s work history to receive Social Security benefits. Once stripped of her Social Security benefits, she would face poverty and be forced to work well into her senior years to provide for her basic needs. Many seniors would also have to pay additional taxes on their Social Security benefits if they re-marry. Some elders end up sacrificing hard-earned health care, military or pension benefits if they re-marry. The domestic partnership law allows unmarried senior couples to have the legal protections they need, take care of each other, be able to provide insurance or take family or medical leave if a partner is gravely ill, and make critical decisions for one another in times of crisis, without losing benefits that for many may be their only source of income. They should not have to live in poverty in order to be together with the person they love.
Who supports domestic partnerships for seniors? The domestic partnership law is widely supported by Washington organizations and agencies dedicated to serving our seniors. The Washington State Senior Citizen Lobby, which represents 26 agencies and organizations that focus mainly on seniors’ issues, has joined forces with Senior Services, Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services Seattle/King County, Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and over 175 other organizations to help preserve the domestic partnership law.
PROTECT ALL FAMILIES EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW
Vote Approve on Referendum 71
Hello.
My PC worked not correctly, many errors. Please, help me to fix errors on my computer.
I used Windows XP.
With best regards,
eliceania
Receive snazzy VIAGRA
You commitment not be dissapointed
Unsolicited pills in the service of the narrow the gap of harry
Subsist joined at once!
Our Company, Authorised Software Reseller, is a fast-growing Corporation, which provides high quality software. Do you need integrated software solution for your convenience of use? Then, choosing our company is a right decision. A lot of completely satisfied customers had already benefited from our software. Thanks to our software, a lot of our customers have met their goals and expectations. The number of completely satisfied customers is growing rapidly day by day.
The Mission
Our mission is to provide professional software products and services to our clients and club, site, party members. These products will help our customers worldwide to have better design and solutions.
Our Team
Our team consists of the best developers, analysts and highly qualified programmers. Each of them has a very good experience from 3 to 10 years in this area. They are responsible and diligent, as well as highly interested in the success of the product they’ve created. We use the most modern and appropriate information technologies to transform our inventive ideas into the best solutions for our clients.
Cheap OEM software - Downloadable Discount Software!
http://alturl.com/4pno