CONGRESS CONSIDERS BUDGET DATABASE 4
WEA CASE UPDATE 7
PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION JUDGE ADEALS BLOW TOEVERGREEN ELECTION SECURITY 11 1
LIVING LIBERTY SEPTEMBER 2006
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
Imagine
a truly public education system. by Marsha Michaelis
E
lizabeth Scott was a single mother working three different jobs in the Seattle area when she decided to teach her son Harrison at home. He was an energetic, hands-on learner who wasn’t responding well to long hours in kindergarten and after-school programs. It occurred to Elizabeth one day that the paycheck from one of her jobs was equivalent to the tuition for one of Harry’s school programs, so she quit that job and dedicated the time to teaching him. By the end of their first month of home education, Harry was reading Dr. Seuss books aloud. Within six months he was reading the Little House on the Prairie series. Elizabeth tried to stay a step ahead of him and read him more challenging books at bed-time, but he was always catching up with her. Today Harrison is a gregarious and articulate ten-yearold who reads at the 12th grade level. He recently earned a standing ovation when he spoke before a crowd of more than 400 at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s 15th Anniversary Gala. His topic: The importance of education. Elizabeth met and married Paul four years ago, and they are now a family of five, with 16-year-old Katherine and two-year-old Libby. Katherine attends public school and is preparing to start college early through the state’s Running Start program. Paul and Elizabeth plan to teach Libby at home, and are discovering that she is a more auditory learner. They will likely use a lot of songs and tapes in her education. Harrison’s accomplishments are impressive for a boy his age. But Elizabeth didn’t decide to teach him at home because she discovered she had a protégé on her hands. She simply saw that his unique needs and abilities were not well served
in the educational setting he was in, so she gave him a better opportunity, and as a result, he is thriving. In a state that considers education its paramount constitutional duty and spends an average of $10,000 per student in its K-12 public education system, there is no reason the best opportunities cannot be put within reach of all students. This will require a change in thinking. If asked to describe public education, most people today would tell you about their local public schools—an institution. But public education isn’t the same as public schools. A school is a delivery system. Public education is a mission. We all know children are unique and diverse in their interests, abilities and learning styles. Yet, strangely, most people acquiesce to the idea that one system of schooling, designed and operated by government, will meet the educational needs of all children. It has not. It will not. It cannot. We need to be honest about the shortcomings in our current system of public schools. For an average cost of more than $10,000 per student per year, Washington citizens get a public school system in which a majority of
Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 Address service requested
“We all know children are unique and diverse in their interests, abilities and learning styles. Yet, str angely, most people acquiesce to the idea that one system of schooling, owned and oper ated by government, will meet the educational needs of all children.” Continued on page 3
NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
OLYMPIA, WA PERMIT #462
2
LIVING LIBERTY
State auditor launches new performance audit website by Jason Mercier
A
rmed with the power granted by Initiative 900, State Auditor Brian Sonntag is moving forward with an ambitious schedule of performance audits to hold government accountable to Washington taxpayers. Part of that accountability effort includes communicating with the public about what his office is doing and how the performance audits are progressing. To help with this effort, the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) launched a revamped performance audit website with details about his performance audit activities. Visitors to the website will see a calendar of events, listing of audits in progress, employment opportunities, weekly updates, and a soon-to-be added email sign-up for additional details.
As of August, the following performance audits were underway: three reviewing the Department of Transportation, one looking into the state’s Educational Service Districts (K-12), and one studying Health Care Quality Assurance (at the request of Governor Gregoire). Many other performance audits are currently being planned. EFF is working diligently to ensure that the authority granted by I-900 is not subject to the same lack of respect that so many of the people’s other initiatives face from the legislature. The fight for government accountability did not end with I900’s adoption. Now the real work begins—work EFF is actively engaged in on your behalf.
SAO’s Performance Audit Website: http://www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceAudit/default.asp
“Quote” “There’s no particular relationship between spending and educational results. Most education spending is actually on salaries, and that’s allocated according to political muscle.” – Peter Brimelow
VOLUME 16, Issue 9 EFF’s mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government.
Publisher: Booker Stallworth Editors: Lynn Harsh Marsha Michaelis Layout: Joel Sorrell
Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482 Fax (360) 352-1874 info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org
This Issue 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3 LETTER FROM LYNN WE HAVE PROMISES TO KEEP
4 CONGRESS CONSIDERING SEARCHABLE BUDGET DATABASE STATE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SPENDING LIMIT LAWSUIT 5 PURSUING AN EDUCATION TO ESCAPE POVERTY FAMILIES ENSURE CHILDREN “THRIVE BY FIVE” 6 MERITS OF SCHOOL CHOICE UNAFFECTED BY STUDY THE $10,000 ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 7 WEA CASE UPDATE 8 RULING CLEARS WAY FOR UNION ACCOUNTABILITY GIVE ALL STATE EMPLOYEES A VOTE ON THEIR CONTRACT 9 GREGOIRE’S $50 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIEN BILL PRINCIPLED OR HYPOCRITICAL?
LEGISLATURE MUST HOLD HEARINGS ON MEDICAID AUDIT EFF STAFF ADDRESS KEY AUDIENCES ON ELECTION REFORM
10 11
10 CHARITABLE FUNDS AND MATCHING GIFTS 11 ELECTED AUDITOR PROPOSAL MAY GO TO KING COUNTY VOTERS IN 2009 BACK TO THE “HONOR SYSTEM” JUDGE DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO ELECTION SECURITY
12
12 WILL THE NEW SAM REED PLEASE STAND UP?
Will the new Sam Reed please stand up?
Pg. 12
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
3
LetterLET fromTER Lynn FROM LY NN by Lynn Harsh
We have promises to keep
M
y younger son left a message on my cell phone last month explaining that some unexpected duty would prevent him from meeting me in the middle of the afternoon on a Friday. His brother and I were heading toward Camp Pendleton to visit him for a few days. When we finally caught up with each other, he explained that he had been put in charge of making sure the Marines in his company started and completed a 24mile march that hot California day... with 80 lb. packs on their backs. I looked in disbelief at this tan, muscled young man sitting across the table from me. It was 10:00 at night, and he looked great! If I had been on that 24-mile march up and down those hills and valleys, my boys would have been visiting me in the emergency room! He shrugged his shoulders about the unexpected duty and said it was an honor to lead “his men”; that it was part of his job. My mind flashed back to his brief accounting of the Fallujah battle that forever cemented in his mind the necessity for leadership, cooperation and fierce loyalty to his soldiers. It was in that relentless desert that he learned to appreciate good leadership and to execute it himself.
Though they were unaware of it, that conversation with my sons provided me with “internal” information for a decision I had been asked to make about leadership here at EFF. For me, this decision also revolved around duty and honor. It has to do with our succession plan. We are in year four of our six-year plan. It’s not that we expect anything dramatic to occur at the end of the six years, but we and our Trustees are committed to ensuring that EFF’s mission will be carried on with integrity and excellence when Bob and I are gone. That means we hire, retain and train excellent staff who become well seasoned and well known. This is occurring. We have crafted protections for our investors’ money, particularly funds willed to us that will likely be used after Bob or I are not here. We are adding outstanding Trustees whose character and love of freedom are unquestioned. By the fall of 2006, the plan called for us to have at least one staff person with the capacity to be Bob’s successor, even if that person wasn’t officially designated as such yet. Some months back, I was asked to consider that job. Initially, I resisted that idea, but the conversations with my sons that weekend reminded me of the
duty I feel toward our country, this organization and the incredible people I am privileged to serve. And there’s another very important matter. We have promises to keep: promises to our members and our investors; promises to the next generation to fight on their behalf to restore freedom; promises to the movement of which we are part—a movement statists on the Left would love to fracture, neutralize or wear down. So, when our Trustees decided I could properly lead EFF, it was done. Besides, Bob’s not going anywhere, and he will continue providing great counsel for all of us. This is not a 24-mile march, and no evacuation is allowed. It’s not Fallujah; it’s the battle of our Revolutionary ancestors. I’m not tanned and muscled anymore, but I’m pretty relentless. And I feel fierce loyalty toward my colleagues, our members, and the ideals that birthed our country. I will do my best to serve you well. Actually this is the promise all of us have made to you and others, and we intend to keep it.
I
am pleased to announce that the EFF Board of Trustees, on August 11, 2006, appointed Lynn Harsh as Chief Executive Officer of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF). Lynn will provide leadership for EFF as we work to significantly increase the depth and reach of our freedom message. She now assumes responsibility for overseeing all EFF operations, to include strategic planning and oversight of the managers who execute our plans. She reports directly to EFF Trustees. This is the next step toward implementing our succession plan. I will remain as EFF’s President. My duties will focus on external relations to include public speaking, meeting with members and development. I will mentor staff as needed. Lynn and I are pleased with this change, as are our Trustees and staff. We believe it strengthens EFF and honors the many fine people who support this organization. This appointment and the staffing decisions we make over the next few years will be critical to ensuring successful leadership transition in the years to come.
Imagine continued from page 1 . . .
Pictured: 10-year old EFF conference speaker Harrison Scott shares a moment with 2004 Gubenatorial candidate Dino Rossi while Mom (Elizabeth) looks on.
students in every grade tested fail basic exams in reading, writing or math; one out of three drops out of school before graduation; and more than half who earn a diploma and go on to community college must take remedial courses in basic subjects. Many of our best teachers and administrators are deeply frustrated and discouraged. Our state is not delivering on its promise to provide all children with an opportunity to earn the basic education necessary to success-
fully pursue and achieve their dreams. Parents who can afford alternatives to poorly performing public schools often vote with their feet; in Seattle, one out of four students attends a private school. But many parents are helpless to seek better alternatives. This must change. Elizabeth Scott’s family knows the benefits of tailoring education to meet the diverse needs of their children, but home education isn’t the best option for every family. That’s because there isn’t one best option; there are many. It’s time to allow parents to choose the educational options that best meet the needs of each of their children, and to allow public education dollars to follow students to those venues.
4
LIVING LIBERTY
Congress considering searchable budget database by Victor Joecks
E
very year the federal government buys about $500 billion in goods and services and gives an additional $500 billion in grants to individuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and state and local governments. The details on this spending are buried deep within the federal budget. To hold government officials accountable for their spending priorities, citizens have a right to know who the government is giving our tax dollars to. Even with today’s technology, however, it often takes months of Freedom of Information Act requests to discover how much the federal government gives each year to a corporation, to a non-profit organization, or to state and local governments. Senate Bill 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FAT) Act, would change that. It is co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of Senators including Tom Coburn, Barack Obama, Tom Carper, John McCain, John Sununu, and Jim DeMint. The FAT Act would require the President’s Administration to establish a free website that would disclose “every recipient of federal grants, contracts, loans and other types of assistance,” said Sen. Coburn. “This would include how
much money was given and for what purpose, extending to subcontractors and subgrantees.” The FAT Act would allow any citizen with an internet connection to access a database searchable by name, location, and amount of federal funds received. Knowing that a record of their spending choices will be readily available to the public may cause politicians to exhibit more fiscal responsibility. Regardless, voters will have the necessary information to make an informed decision in the next election. Sen. McCain testified that “OMB (Office of Management and Budget) already maintains the data necessary for this website, and the technology clearly exists to implement the requirements of this bill.” Currently the Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Audit Clearinghouse, RAND Database of Research and Development, and the National Endowment for the Arts all maintain online databases that provide some details about funding recipients. The need for fiscal responsibility and accountability is not limited to politicians in Washington D.C. Washington state citizens also have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their state
tax dollars. A state version of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act would allow state citizens, activists, bloggers, and political organizations to examine the state budget. The information needed to create the database should already be maintained by the Office of Financial Management. Washington legislators should consider the authorization of a state FAT database, which would greatly increase the accountability and transparency in state government. Budget transparency and disclosure go a long way toward preventing waste. Thomas Jefferson knew this in 1802 when he wrote, “We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.” S. 2590 would use modern technology to make Jefferson’s vision a reality.
“We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.” – Thomas Jefferson
State Supreme Court to hear spending limit lawsuit by Jason Mercier
W
ashington’s state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit concerning the legislature’s violation of the people’s tax and spending limit, Initiative I-601. The lawsuit was originally filed last year by the “Save 601” coalition to protect the spending and tax limits imposed by I-601. The initiative was passed by voters in 1993 and restricts the rate at which the budget can grow. It also requires that any tax increase in excess of the limit be ratified by voters before taking affect. Joining EFF as plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were the Washington Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the Washington State Grange, the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), the Washington Association of REALTORS®, and Snohomish County taxpayer Steve Neighbors. During the 2005 Legislative Session, lawmakers artificially increased the spending and tax limits imposed by I-601 by engaging in a $250 million “merry-go-round” fund transfer among three state accounts. This enabled legislators to enact almost $1 billion in new spending and taxes—including a state-only death tax and new taxes on cigarettes, liquor, and extended warranties— without triggering a vote of the people. On March 17, 2006, Snohomish County Judge James Allendoerfer ruled in favor of the “Save 601” coalition, finding the state’s 2005-07 budget violates the tax and expenditure limits. Allendoerfer ordered the spending limit reduced by $250 million and invalidated most of the tax increases until ratified by a vote of the people. The death and cigarette taxes survived on a technicality. I-601’s taxpayer protections apply only to the state’s
general fund. When enacting the death and cigarette taxes, the Legislature dedicated the revenue to an offbudget account. Within hours of that ruling, the Attorney General filed a request on behalf of the state with the Supreme Court to stay Allendoerfer’s ruling. A stay permits state officials to continue collecting the suspect taxes. EFF responded with the concern that the state would argue against a refund, if Allendoerfer’s decision is upheld, because the money would have already been spent.
Your help needed Since the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, your help is needed. Taxdeductible contributions can be sent to EFF to help defray the cost of this legal challenge and to protect Washington’s tax and spending limit. Additional details on the lawsuit can be found at:
www.save601.org. Attorney General Rob McKenna promised in his filing that the state “has not claimed and will not claim that the refund remedy would be unavailable if the taxes at issue ultimately are held invalid.”
When the stay was granted by Supreme Court Commissioner Geoffrey Crooks on May 25, 2006, Crooks said, “The State will be held to this promise.” On July 20, 2006, in response to a motion for reconsideration, Judge Allendoerfer ordered an additional reduction to the spending limit. If upheld by the state Supreme Court, this order could result in approximately $520 million in reduction to the state’s 2005-07 spending limit, potentially calling into question the state’s ability to spend more money in a 2007 supplemental budget. In addition to considering whether the state violated I-601 and if the various taxes are null and void without a vote of the people, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on whether the Legislative and Executive branches can exempt themselves from public records disclosure. Though some of the budget records were ultimately turned over to the “Save 601” coalition, most were withheld on the basis of “legislative” and “executive” privilege. The budget records that were released were very damning for the state. As noted by KING 5 columnist Terry Corbell, “Claiming both executive and legislative privilege, the state tried to conceal a series of incriminating emails. But the judge allowed some into evidence and ruled that the e-mails proved budget writers knew they were violating the intent of I-601. The e-mails plotted a scheme to shift funds in order to superficially inflate the spending limit to avoid automatically triggering a public vote on the tax increases.”
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
5
“Unfortunately, far too many youth living in poverty are falling behind and dropping out of high school at a time when increased educational attainment is essential for future
by Harold M. Baker
Pursuing an education to escape poverty
O
ver the past few years, President George W. Bush, Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and other high-profile politicians and celebrities have helped focus national discussion and debate on the education crisis in America. A large portion of this dialogue centers on how to improve the overall academic performance of impoverished children. In this great nation, everyone recognizes that education is the ticket out of poverty for all who pursue the opportunity. Unfortunately, far too many youth living in poverty are falling behind and dropping out of high school at a time when increased educational attainment is essential for future economic prosperity. Part of the problem lies in the fact that many low income children are trapped in failing public schools that have no incentive to provide better educational services for their students. An equally important part of the problem is that too many teachers and other public school officials have extremely low expectations for these students based on their families’ low socioeconomic status. While a troubled home environment, unsafe neighborhood, limited family resources, and other external factors make it difficult for a child to pursue academic excellence, these factors can be overcome through sustained effort and an internal commitment to succeed. Parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens must effectively communicate to students that a lack of money and material possessions can lead to temporary anguish and dis-
comfort, but a lack of hope and hard work will lead to permanent poverty and despair. American history is filled with numerous “rags to riches” stories that resulted from hard word, education, and a strong desire to be the best. More importantly, there are millions of ordinary Americans who grew up poor and destitute, but were able to attain successful middle class lives through their own drive and determination. Today, more than ever before in our history, the doors of opportunity and advancement are open and available to anyone with a dream in his heart and the willingness to make it come true. Every year, millions of immigrants flock to this country from every corner of the globe with little more than the shirt on their backs and a fire in their bellies. They start off at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and quickly begin their rapid ascent, despite enduring poverty, language barriers, and other hardships. These immigrants succeed in America because they want a better life, and they do what is necessary to achieve it. Obviously, many Americans living in poverty also want a better life for themselves and their children. Sadly, some see careers in professional sports and the entertainment industry as the only sure path out of their current condition. Although many students recognize the connection between education and high paying jobs, many focus less on those dreams as they encounter more academic frustration and apathy in higher grades.
economic prosperity.”
From kindergarten through high school, teachers, administrators, and others involved in public education must set high expectations for low-income students and their families. Economic hardship, family dysfunction, and other often cited excuses can no longer be considered acceptable reasons for not putting forth the effort it takes to achieve academic success. These difficult conditions can be overcome if students and their families continuously strive to meet or exceed high education standards. My life is but one of many examples of a child born into cyclical poverty who used education to break free and enter middle income America. With the strong support and encouragement of a few loving teachers and family members, I was able to graduate high school and earn a degree at the United States Air Force Academy. Each step of the way, I encountered challenges and experienced set backs, but I never lost sight of the fact that I could succeed because it was expected of me throughout my entire academic career. If our public education system truly believes that all children can learn, it should stop lowering academic standards and start expecting low-income students to perform at the same level as their more privileged peers. When this is consistently done in all schools, our society will see an increased number of youth free themselves from the chains of poverty and become highly productive citizens.
Families ensure children “Thrive by Five” by Harold M. Baker
T
he formation of Thrive by Five, the Washington Early Learning Fund, has demonstrated that early childhood education is a top priority of government and business leaders in this state. These leaders have correctly determined that the interactions and experiences a child receives during the first five years of life are extremely important to the development of the cognitive, social, emotional, and language skills necessary for future academic achievement and subsequent economic success. The founders and supporters of Thrive by Five, however, have missed the mark in one key area. They seem to believe that the government and other social service providers must increase their role in early childhood development to ensure that children receive the quality care and learning opportunities required for proper development. Our rich American history proves this assumption wrong. Eighty years ago, parents raised their children without a lot of government involvement. Less than twenty years later, many of these teens and young adults would leave their homes and families behind to go off to war to fight for the freedom we cherish today. They are known
as the Greatest Generation, and their gallant efforts saved the world. Their parents were able to successfully raise and educate these future heroes under the extremely difficult economic conditions caused by the Great Depression, without overly relying on government for support. Although government agencies like the Department of Early Learning and non-profit organizations like Thrive by Five have a part to play in our society’s current focus on early childhood development, they must not take the lead role. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s growth and development; they should take the lead in ensuring that all infants and toddlers receive the quality care and early learning opportunities required for school readiness. Unfortunately, some adults are abdicating many of their parental responsibilities. In the past fifty years, our society has witnessed a dramatic decrease in comprehensive parental involvement in the lives of their children. Some say it is because both parents are too busy in the workforce struggling to make ends meet. Others point to the increase in single parent households due to a corresponding increase in divorce, out-of-wed-
lock births, and parental abandonment. While these reasons are definitely a large part of the problem, there is a small, yet growing reason that is easy to overlook. Too many parents have relied more on the government and other outside entities to help raise their children, and less on their own efforts and abilities. As a result, these institutions have expanded their participation in the daily lives of families with children. Until all parents fully embrace and assume their complete parental obligations, we will see more encroachments from the government and other institutions on family life. All children need and deserve the best early childhood experiences that will enable them to thrive by five. As the citizens of Washington State continue to move forward to make this a reality, we must keep in mind that parents are a child’s first and best teachers. The government, non-profit organizations, and other outside institutions can assist parents in their vitally important role, but they cannot replace them.
6
LIVING LIBERTY
Merits of school choice unaffected by study by Marsha Michaelis
A
recent study published by the U.S. Department of Education suggests average public and private school performance may be about equal when student test data is weighted to account for demographic differences. You can imagine the flurry of response. Staunch advocates of public schools (like the teachers’ unions) claim the study as proof that public schools are doing a good job with public money and should get more. It’s just one more reason, they say, why parents should have to send their children to a public school if they want to use any of the public dollars allocated for education. It’s questionable whether the study actually supports the conclusions being drawn by opponents of school choice (its own authors strongly caution against sweeping conclusions and other respected researchers have questioned the methodology). But even if it is true that average public and private schools are similar when it comes to academic performance, that’s no argument against school choice. If anything, it makes the case for change even stronger. The truth is, many private schools do not post impressive student test scores. While the average private school performs significantly better than the average
public school on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, more than half of the students in the private schools measured are still failing to score proficient in reading and math. We can draw a couple of conclusions from this: First, since average private school tuition is half to a third the cost of public school, private schools are far more effi-
"...an excellent K-12 education is the exception in our country, not the rule. We need to change that. We won’t change it by limiting educational options..." cient. Second, and much more importantly, we can conclude that an excellent K-12 education is the exception in our country, not the rule. We need to change that. We won’t change it by limiting educational options (as many in the public school establishment would like to do), but by vastly expanding them.
Today, 88 percent of the school-age children in our country attend public schools. Thus, one education provider (government) controls 88 percent of the market. Government’s huge market share has not been gained because consumers (parents and students) have carefully chosen its product over those offered by other providers. Rather, they must pay for it whether they like it or not. For many that’s the only affordable option. While wealthy parents can afford to pay for the best alternatives if their assigned public school is mediocre, many other parents are struggling. Some families can pull together enough to pay an average private school tuition (in addition to the taxes they pay for public schools), but their options are unfairly limited by government. Parents and students need educational options as diverse as they are. They need the freedom to choose the education models and services that best meet their individual needs and abilities. They need a truly public education system in which public dollars follow students into those diverse education venues. The debate over public and private schools should be left to parents, and parents should be empowered to make the choices that best serve their children.
by Glenn Bristol
Y
“In fact, out of 489 educational articles in three different papers from opposite sides of the state, not a single one mentioned total per-pupil spending in Washington state!”
ou’ve heard it time and time again. The single greatest issue facing education in the state of Washington is insufficient funding. What we need to improve the schools in this state is more money, smaller class sizes, and higher teacher pay. In a variety of media, this is the conversation taking place about education. With only these options in play, it seems less like a conversation and more like an endless torrent of begging. Regardless of the current levels of funding or school performance, the educational establishment keeps coming to the table to ask, “Please sir, may I have some more?” And the public generally obliges. EFF recently commissioned a poll of 400 registered voters regarding public education attitudes in this state. The poll, conducted by Dresner, Wickers, and Associates, shed significant light on just how well the public is informed about education and its funding. Fifty-four percent of participants find it either “very difficult” or “somewhat difficult” to understand the issues facing education today. A whopping 71 percent believed that not enough information was given to the public to understand the issues facing education. In spite of this information gap, there seems to be some consensus regarding how to improve things—a whopping 60 percent of participants believed that schools are currently under-funded. Only 7 percent believed that schools are over-funded. When asked to estimate how much the state spends per K-12 pupil each year, only 12 percent of respondents guessed within $2,000 of the correct amount ($10,000).
More than a third of the respondents would not even venture a guess. Since the highest percentage of survey participants said they get their information about their local school system from the newspaper, we decided to look over a year’s worth of newspaper articles about Washington state education to see what information is being presented. Over the course of six weeks, I reviewed and catalogued nearly 500 articles from three different newspapers (Seattle Times, The Columbian, and SpokesmanReview), and the results were downright shocking. Only 12 articles even partially mentioned per-pupil spending, citing figures such as the general fund portion or the funding provided by Initiative 728. Associated Press articles in the The Columbian informed readers of the per-pupil spending in Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, New Jersey, and the national average, but there was no such information about our own state. In fact, out of 489 educational articles in three different papers from opposite sides of the state, not a single one mentioned total per-pupil spending in Washington state! With such a crucial piece of information being virtually ignored by the print media, is it any wonder the public thinks schools are under-funded? Without a public that is well-informed about the costs of education, there can be no real discussion about how to get the best value for our education dollars, nor can there be any talk of meaningful reforms within the present system. Glenn Bristol is a 2006 summer intern who worked in the Foundation’s Education Reform Center. He is currently attending the University of Washington, where he will soon be earning a degree in political science.
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
WEA CASE UPDATE W
e are continuing our march toward the Supreme Court. EFF filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to accept review of the Washington v. Washington Education Association case. EFF was joined by a broad coalition, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the country’s largest, voluntary association of state legislators, and many other state-based public policy organizations, to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Washington ruling. We are doing our best to encourage the Supreme Court to hear this important case. Between now and October (when the Court decides whether it will hear it), we will be speaking on television and radio, sending publications to lawmakers and teachers describing the case, and updating our website with teacher interviews and pointed parodies, explaining why the case is important in our state and across the nation.
Our talented communications team has created a flash game/presentation that challenges players to “try their luck at opting out of the union.” Named The Greatest Scam on Earth, the game features AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and NEA President Reg Weaver, who urge the gamer to try to opt-out of union dues. Sweeney and Weaver laugh at the player, while the “opt-out” icon keeps moving and circus music plays in the background. Eventually, the gamer is forced to “give up and pay.” The game illustrates how the opt-out process is prohibitively difficult and confusing. Many workers simply “give up and pay” out of frustration. Even if they are able to opt-out, they are still required to pay agency fees, which the union illegally uses on politics. If you would like to help fund our campaign, please visit our website at www.effwa.org/contribute. For more details on the case, visit www.teachers-vsunion.org. This new site provides all of the latest information, key documents, and teacher testimonials related to the case.
by Kristen Mercier
EFF’s marketing efforts include: • A Billboard Truck at the NEA Convention • A WEA Case Magazine and Informational CD-ROM • A Case Website for Media: www.teachers-vs-union.org • A Multi-media Flash and Video Teacher Profile Website • An Interactive Game: “The Greatest Scam on Earth” • A Web Video: “NEA Bosses: Heroes or Zeroes?” • Union Hokey Pokey Web Flash
7
8
LIVING LIBERTY
Ruling clears way for union accountability by Michael Reitz, J.D.
U
nion officials may want to brush up on Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Lynne Truss’ seminal book on punctuation. The placement of a comma in federal regulations led to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that requires labor unions to show some accountability and transparency for how they spend their members’ money—a crucial step in making Big Labor more responsive to its membership. On August 1, Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg ruled the U.S. Department of Labor can require state affiliates of the National Education Association to provide detailed financial records to members. The federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) requires labor organizations to annually file detailed reports, including information about staff salaries and benefits, income, and expenditures. Congress declared the law was “necessary to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations.” In 2002, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao undertook a comprehensive effort to modernize regulations that had remained unchanged for 40 years. Union financial reports are now posted online, rather than gathering dust in a Washington, D.C. basement. Union members have benefited from a new era of union transparency. They have learned that labor organizations use their dues for a host of things that have nothing to do with collective bargaining. For example, in 2005, organized labor spent $1.3 million on golf, $7.3 million at plush resorts, nearly $1.3 million for amusement park events, and $641,000 for sporting events. Ironworkers Local 40 in New York spent $52,879 on a new Cadillac for a retiring president. SEIU Local 660 in Los Angeles spent $153,000 on movie tickets. For the past four decades, federal disclosure requirements applied only to unions that represented private sector employees. Unions that consisted wholly of government employees, such as the Washington Education Association or the Washington Federation of State Employees, were exempt. As a result, millions of union members have no idea how union officials spend their dues. Secretary Chao addressed this issue by requiring local and state public sector unions to also comply with the law if they are affiliated with a national union that falls under the Act. The implications of this change are enormous and will affect local unions in all 50 states.
Thirty-two affiliates of the National Education Asso- retary Chao’s modernized reporting ciation, including the Washington Education Associa- forms, claiming that compliance tion, sued to avoid disclosure in 2003. In reviewing fed- would cost organized labor over a eral regulations, the Court of Appeals spent three pages billion dollars. In reality, as reported of a 19-page decision attempting to divine Congressio- by National Review, the AFL-CIO nal intent in the placement of a comma. The issue was spent only $54,000 for the bookkeepwhether Congress meant to include state affiliates of na- ing and related expenses. tional unions in the definition of “labor organization,” In Washington state, the effort to and it was a lowly comma that sparked the question. avoid accountability goes a step further. The WashingIn the end, the court ruled the U.S. Department of La- ton Education Association actually argued in court that bor did not exceed its authority by applying federal rules it had no fiduciary responsibility to the teachers it repreto state government unions. The Court also instruct- sents. In other words, the union doesn’t have to account ed the Department of Labor to reissue its analysis to its own members for how dues are spent. for why the change was necessary. This process will likely require several months to complete. This ruling brings organized “Public employees cannot labor a step in the right direction. Washington state pub“The placement of a comma make informed decisions lic employee’s collective in federal regulations led to a bargaining agreements about the benefit of union mandate union representaU.S. Court of Appeals ruling tion for tens of thousands that requires labor unions to representation unless of public employees. These employees are forced to show some accountability they know the details of pay union dues as a conand transparency for how dition of employment, but the union’s income and they spend their members’ have little information about how their dues are spent. money” expenditures.” Financial transparency is essential to good stewardship. As a matter of public policy, we give voters access to information about the finances of political candidates. Shareholders of corporations reLabor unions will continue to use and abuse ceive regular financial reports. But when their members as long as they are permitted to union funds are mismanaged, union operate in the shadows. Only accountability will members are often unknowing vicbreed the responsiveness the modern labor movement is tims. Establishing financial discloin such dire need of recapturing, and Washington state sure rules for labor organizations will ensure accountability to union shareholders and can be a leader in this process. The Washington Legislature need not wait for a federwill reduce the potential for corruption. Public employees cannot make informed decisions al directive. The American Legislative Exchange Counabout the benefit of union representation unless they cil has state model legislation that mandates disclosure know the details of the union’s income and expendi- and would be happy to work with political leaders to introduce this legislation. If the legislature does nothtures. Unions routinely argue against this level of account- ing, however, the U.S. Department of Labor may soon ability to their members. The AFL-CIO objected to Sec- require unions to open their books.
Give all state employees a vote on their contract by Michael Reitz, J.D.
T
he Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), the largest state employee union, will not allow workers to vote on the 2007-09 collective bargaining agreement if they have not agreed to pay for the union’s political activity. These workers pay full collective bargaining dues. So why not give them a vote on their contract? State employees who are covered by union bargaining are required to pay union dues. Those who object to the union’s political activism can become “fee payers.” Fee payers are classified as nonmembers, and are entitled to a rebate of a portion of dues. They are still required, however, to pay more than 75 percent of full dues—supposedly their “fair share” for the union’s collective bargaining services. During the 2005-07 contract negotiations, the state agreed to require dues as a condition of employment. In exchange, unions agreed to allow all affected state workers to vote on contract ratification. Unfortunately, the WFSE did a abysmal job publicizing the vote. Only 6,133 of some 30,000 eligible employees voted. Even Governor Chris Gregoire expressed concern about how the vote was handled. After the contract went into effect, six state employees were fired for not
"ONLY 6,133 OF SOME 30,000 ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES VOTED. EVEN GOVERNOR CHRIS GREGOIRE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE VOTE WAS HANDLED."
PICTURED: PAT WOODWARD, LOST HER JOB FOR REFUSING TO PAY UNION DUES.
paying union dues. Hundreds of others were threatened with termination and paid dues only to keep their jobs. The union is dropping all pretense of open participation this year. Fee payers will not be allowed to vote, despite the fact they already pay full collective bargaining dues. Some 7,000 workers covered by WFSE negotiations are fee payers (more workers, incidentally, than ratified the original agreement). Unions routinely describe ratification votes as “internal union business.”
If only that were so. If association with the union were an internal matter, then the force of state law wouldn’t mandate that workers pay for union services. The state wouldn’t terminate those who refuse to pay. As it is, the WFSE’s refusal to allow fee payers a vote on the contact is mean-spirited and vindictive. It penalizes employees who prefer not to be cash cows for the union’s political machine. Governor Gregoire’s negotiating team should insist that all workers deserve a vote on their contract. After all, they’re paying their “fair share.”
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
9
Gregoire’s $50 million illegal alien bill: principled or hypocritical? by Victor Joecks
G
overnor Christine Gregoire recently sent U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a bill for $50 million—Washington’s cost of imprisoning criminal illegal aliens in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The governor demanded “the U.S. government fulfill its legal duty to reimburse Washington State taxpayers for the cost of carrying out this federal function.” Although her rhetoric is tough, Gregoire’s invoice is largely symbolic, because the feds likely will not pay their bill. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has been sending the federal government a similar statement for over three years, but has not yet received any of the $270 million reimbursement she desired. That said, the governor’s letter is worthy of praise. It’s about time Washington state requested the federal government fulfill its obligation on this issue. Now that Gregoire has pointed out the speck in the eye of the federal government, she should stop ignoring the plank in the state’s—the tens of millions of dollars Washington spends on illegals each year. In Washington, illegal immigrants are eligible for driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, and worker’s compensation benefits. The state has also budgeted millions of
dollars specifically for illegal aliens. Examples include $10 million in medical and dental care for illegal immigrant children and $420,000 for illegal alien family planning services. The state was also hard hit in its recent Medicaid audit. It was cited for spending $28 million on non-emergency services for illegal aliens and $55 million on procedures for individuals without properly determining their immigration status. Not checking immigrant status is a convenient way to skirt Medicaid’s citizenship requirement. In all, 15,890 illegal aliens received Medicaid in Washington in 2004, a nine percent increase from 2003 when 14,553 received services. Because of these violations, the feds may penalize Washington by requiring the state to return $27 to $32 million. Unlike Gregoire’s bill to the feds, this one will most likely have to be paid. Gregoire said in her letter to Gonzalez, “The DOC (Department of Corrections) does not have enough prison capacity to house all Washington inmates and as a result, must rent beds in other states. If the federal government assumed its rightful responsibility to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens, Washington would have
greater capacity to incarcerate all of its offenders.” With a limited number of beds, every spot that is taken by an illegal alien crowds out a state offender. This is exactly what happens when Washington willingly offers other services to illegal aliens—fewer services are available for legal residents. In the case of university admissions and daycare spots, the parallels are especially striking. Ironically, illegals who receive a high school diploma or college degree are prohibited from legally obtaining employment due to their immigrations status. For the sake of state taxpayers, let’s hope Gregoire’s letter represents a principled epiphany on the unfairness of forcing taxpayers to provide state services to those violating federal law. The governor’s response to the Medicaid audit and her 2007-09 budget proposal will show citizens what she truly believes. If she has implemented policies to stop the state from illegally providing Medicaid services to illegals and eliminated services for illegal aliens in her December budget proposal, citizens should applaud her for her principled and correct actions. If not, her hypocrisy will be revealed.
Legislature must hold hearings on medicaid audit by Jason Mercier
E
arlier this year the state auditor released the 2005 state audit of Washington’s Medicaid program. Of 28 findings, an astounding 18 were repeat violations from the previous year. In total, nearly $1 billion of $6.2 billion in Medicaid spending (all funds) was “questioned” by the state auditor. As if this situation wasn’t disturbing enough, serious disagreements exist between the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) on just what the problems are. On June 22, 2006, the state auditor sent the governor a letter indicating that “the amount of questioned costs as defined in federal regulations is being revised from the approximately $950 million we reported in our Medicaid Accountability Report to approximately $80 million. . . I do think it is important you know that the $950 million reported earlier represents dollars at risk due to
internal control and monitoring issues a the Medicaid Program.” As a result of this, OFM believes the true problem is the $80 million reported in the federal report. SAO, however, stands by the $950 million in findings from its original report. This disagreement may have profound impacts on what course of corrective action OFM plans to institute to correct any audit deficiencies. Seeing the disagreement between OFM and SAO, it’s not a surprise that some involved in the state’s Medicaid program have tried to “debunk” the auditor’s findings. One such attempt resulted in the auditor writing a letter to the editor of the Tacoma News Tribune on August 5, reading in-part: “Our Medicaid report issued earlier this year found weaknesses in eligibility determination and other systems that put about $900 million in public Medicaid dollars at risk of being spent on individuals or
procedures that are not eligible for these dollars. That finding still stands . . . Rather than continuing to try to ‘debunk’ our audit, I urge all of those concerned about our findings to continue to work in a constructive manner, along with the governor, the state’s financial managers and the secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services to ensure every precious Medicaid dollar reaches its intended target.” As a result of the misdirected efforts to “debunk” the Medicaid audit, it is critical that the disagreement between OFM and SAO be resolved. This is why the Legislature can no longer abdicate its oversight responsibility and must immediately hold public hearings on the state’s Medicaid audit and any corrective action necessary. Delay only serves to worsen any divide that may exist and calls into question the state’s commitment to resolve audit findings.
EFF staff addresses key audiences on election reform by Jonathan Bechtle
M
any Washingtonians are frustrated about the lack of integrity in our election system, but often aren’t sure of the cause or of how to fix the problems. One of the primary goals of EFF’s Voter Integrity Project is to provide answers to these questions, and speaking to public groups is one of the ways we accomplish this goal. With the fall elections looming on the horizon, several opportunities have arisen for EFF staff to speak with key audiences of legislators and citizens about the status of election security in Washington and in the United States. In mid-July Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, was invited to brief the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC’s) Election Reform Task Force. He was joined by John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist and frequent speaker on election security issues. Bob briefed the Task Force on the latest efforts around the country to combat election fraud, both from state legislatures and law enforcement. He presented a list of recommendations for the attending legislators to introduce in their respective states, including requirements for photo ID, proof of citizen-
ship, increased mail ballot security, and proof of eligibility for voter registration. Williams’ report included updates on states that are implementing these reforms, as well as lawsuits affecting election security. John Fund and Mississippi Representative William Denny, Chairman of the Task Force, praised EFF’s work on election integrity and urged all ALEC members to obtain a copy of Blueprint for Change, EFF’s report on needed election reforms. Williams will continue to act as an advisor to ALEC on election security issues. In August, Jonathan Bechtle, director of the Voter Integrity Project, spoke to members of the Lynnwood Rotary Club on recent VIP activities and publications. He outlined the challenges remaining for the Washington election system and reported on what reforms are still needed to solve those challenges. Many thanks to you, our members, who made it possible for us to respond to these opportunities. We will continue to do so until our mission of having free and fair elections is accomplished.
10
LIVING LIBERTY
Yes,
I
WANT TO INVEST IN THE
EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.
Dear Friend of EFF, While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work. Cordially,
Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confirmation letter for your records. Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each month until further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF. Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date:
1st
10th
20th
I would like to give a one time gift of $ Signature
...BECAUSE FREEDOM M ATTERS!
Date (required for bank and credit card donations)
Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check) Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip) VISA
MASTERCARD
Credit card #
DISCOVER
AMERICAN EXPRESS
Expiration date: Personal Information Name
Company
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!
D
oes your company hold a charitable fund drive or offer matching contributions? Many companies have a special drive each year to encourage employees to give money to charities. These programs often include matching gifts from the company. Most drives will allow you to designate your gift for any non-profit organization (like EFF). This includes the state’s big Combined Fund Drive in October. If your company does not offer a fund drive, it may offer a matching gift program. Usually all that is required is for you to send us a form with your check or credit card contribution. We send verification to your company that we are a 501(c)(3) organization and have received your donation. Then they send us a matching check! Please see if your company will match your contribution to EFF. Because we are a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, all contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. For more information please contact Juliana McMahan, at (360) 956-3482 or jmcmahan@effwa.org.
A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION
11
Elected auditor proposal may go to King County voters in 2009 by Victor Joecks
F
or years the King County Elections department has not been held accountable to the people; consequently, poor leadership and irresponsibility have plagued it. Now, following an EFF recommendation and pressure from EFF members, the majority on the King County Council is poised to start fixing the problem. They are preparing to replace the county executive-appointed Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing with an elected county auditor. This proposal is an amendment to the King County charter and will need to be approved by voters in 2009. Originally, voters were going to decide this fall, but Councilman Bob Ferguson, who originally supported letting voters decide this year, flip-flopped. He has announced that he has the votes to postpone the ballot measure to 2009. All other counties in Washington elect their top elections official. If King County approves an elected auditor, citizens will gain an administrator who is directly accountable to the people for his performance. Voters have the chance to hire or fire him based upon his performance. Also, when the auditor is elected instead of appointed by the county executive, he can appeal to the public if he thinks the county is doing something wrong with elections. Currently, the executive limits what the elections director says publicly or even to the council.
King County Executive Ron Sims denounced the proposal as “absurd” and “politically motivated.” He argued that King County needs a professional elections director, and that electing an auditor will destabilize and politicize the office. Election “professionals” do not guarantee success. Exhibit A: Dean Logan. When King County Executive Ron Sims selected Logan, he instructed him—the election professional—to “clean house” in a troubled department. Logan did not just fail, he made things worse. His technical expertise did not mean he had the leadership skills or character necessary to direct the elections department. Logan left the department in worse shape than he found it, and with 20 percent of the positions in elections vacant or being filled by temporary workers. At the ballot box, voters are able to choose a professional if they want, but more importantly, they can hold whoever is elected accountable. What Sims decries as destabilization is only a transition at the very top, because the elections staff remains. A similar transition happens or has the potential to happen in every democratic election. The experiences every other county in Washington has had with its elected auditors show that a transition in elections can be made smoothly.
Sims’ “politicizing” claim is laughable, because the elections director in King County is already a political office. All an elected auditor would do is shift power from Sims to the people. Sims appears to be motivated more by the fear of losing his political power than a genuine concern for what is in the best interest of King County residents. An elected auditor is the first step in reforming King County Elections. The council should make the auditor a non-partisan position. They should also make the elections division a stand-alone department led by the auditor. This will allow the auditor to focus solely on elections. Additionally, the auditor needs authority to clean house in elections by reassigning employees who are not a good fit to other departments. Logan’s resignation did not solve all the personnel problems in elections, and the new auditor should not be weighed down with incompetent staff. EFF members have done an excellent job advocating for election reform in King County and a major victory is in sight. Now is the chance to support the additional reforms necessary to fully solve the problems in King County and to ensure free and fair elections for the future.
Back to the “honor system”: Judge deals major blow to election security by Jonathan Bechtle
O
n August 1, a federal district court in Seattle handed down a decision that undermines the security of your ballot this fall. The case is called Washington Association of Churches v. Secretary of State Reed and is the brainchild of a New York-based group called the Brennan Center for Justice. If you’ve never heard of it before, don’t feel bad. Through all the recounts and lawsuits of the 2004 gubernatorial election, despite the thousands of legal voters who were disenfranchised by illegal votes and counting errors, the Brennan Center for Justice hasn’t once stepped foot into the state of Washington to help bring justice to our elections system. Now the Center has finally stepped in, but what it’s seeking can hardly be called justice. Instead, the Brennan Center attorneys successfully used misleading evidence to convince a federal judge to remove security measures from Washington’s voter rolls. Three months ago, the Brennan Center filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Reed on behalf of the Washington Association of Churches and similar groups. The purpose was to decrease election security. Its beef was with how our state adds people to the voter rolls. Because of a new federal law, in 2004 the legislature passed a bill requiring every new voter registration to be matched against a person’s driver’s license or social security file. This ensures people are who they say they are, and helps catch any errors before the new registration is added to the system. This system has been working well, although not perfectly, since the licensing and social security databases aren’t flawless. Sometimes the state has to contact a voter to make sure everything matches. But if the state makes an error, there’s a failsafe for the voter: If the registration has not been ironed out by election day, the person can still vote a provisional ballot, which will be counted once the voter proves his eligibility. This way no one is disenfranchised by the matching requirement. In their lawsuit, Brennan Center attorneys produced two people who claimed they were unable to register to vote in 2006 because of the new state law. A little detective work by Stefan Sharkansky at Soundpolitics.com, however, revealed that neither voter lives in a precinct that has held an election in 2006. Despite the weakness of this evidence, the Brennan Center used it to claim “tens of thousands” of voters will likely be disenfran-
“. . . REMOVING THE ‘MATCH’ SECURITY PROCEDURE IS LIKE DECLARING OPEN SEASON FOR VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD. ANYONE CAN MAKE UP AN IDENTITY, FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM, AND BE REGISTERED TO VOTE THIS FALL.”
“WASHINGTON VOTERS HAVE ALREADY SEEN HOW POORLY THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS WHEN IT OPERATES ON AN ‘HONOR SYSTEM.”’
chised. Ironically, their victory in court on Tuesday makes voter disenfranchisement much more likely. Why? Because removing the “match” security procedure is like declaring open season for voter registration fraud. Anyone can make up an identity, fill out a registration form, and be registered to vote this fall. Or a registration containing errors will create a duplicate voter file. So, if an ineligible voter disenfranchises you by casting an illegal ballot, too bad. There’s no failsafe option for you; your ballot gets cancelled out. Judge Ricardo Martinez granted Brennan Center’s request for a preliminary injunction, stopping the “match” process for the 2006 primary and general election. He ruled that the state didn’t show why matching a voter’s information was necessary to prove a person’s eligibility, and that such a law conflicted with the federal Help America Vote Act. But what is more important for voter eligibility than a valid name, address, birthdate, and other identifying information? Washington voters have already seen how poorly the election system works when it operates on an “honor
system.” Martinez’s decision forces election officials to take the word of the voter. He also missed the phrase in the Help America Vote Act that allows states to enact verification standards stricter than the federal requirements. The Washington law improved on the federal law, it didn’t conflict with it. The judge even had the audacity to cite the 2004 gubernatorial election as a reason to register voters without verifying their identity. He says: “Defendant argues that the public’s interest in preventing voter fraud weighs against an injunction in this case. The Court disagrees. Given Washington’s most recent governor’s election, where the winner was decided by just hundreds of votes, the Court finds that the public interest weighs strongly in favor of letting every eligible resident of Washington register and cast a vote.” Of course, now the judge won’t allow the state to actually verify eligibility…. We hope Secretary of State Reed and Attorney General McKenna will take whatever steps necessary to fight this attack on our election security.
12
LIVING LIBERTY
Will the NEW Sam Reed please stand up? Friends –
by Victor Joecks
W
ill the new Sam Reed please stand up? If you look closely, you’ll notice something different about him. No, he has not changed his hair or wardrobe, but he has undergone a political makeover. Instead of being content with window-dressing election fixes, Reed is now pushing for real reforms. Over the past two years, Reed’s actions have frustrated those concerned with free and fair elections. He was a poor leader in the 2004 election fiasco, has consistently minimized the magnitude of fraudulent voters, and has not been honest about the flaws in the state voter registration database. EFF members were not satisfied with Reed’s action and have let him know with an outpouring of phone calls, letters, and emails. Their letters to the editor, blog postings, and participation in town hall meetings have made him realize that his actions were not politically prudent. Thanks to the encouragement and effort of EFF members, bloggers like Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com, and other election reformers, in the last several months Reed has begun to fight for honest election procedures. For example, in March, a King County judge ruled that Washington could not prevent a felon from voting if he had served his jail time but had not fulfilled his financial legal obligations. Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna decided to appeal the case and in a joint statement said, “Each state has the right to determine the process for restoring voting rights to felons.” Reed correctly argues that determining the eligibility of felons is a job for the legislature, not the courts. While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, Reed deserves praise for appealing the case and publicly denouncing the activist judge’s decision. The state voter database is a mixed bag. Reed’s staff should be commended for the progress they have made: According to them 70,000 dead and duplicate registrations and 848 felons who are in prison or on parole have been removed from election rolls. Despite the progress, the database still has glaring problems. Some of the county updates to the database, including King County’s, are not being made in real time, and EFF analysis reveals that duplicate registrations are still being created. Reed has yet to publicly acknowledge these problems; instead he maintains that the database is working well. Although the state database has problems, Reed has been defending it from a legal challenge that would magnify these problems. The leftist Brennan Center for Justice has challenged a state law that compares new voter registrations to a person’s driver’s license or social security file. Comparing information helps prevent errors and duplicate registrations. Brennan recently won an injunction to stop the law’s enforcement. Reed should be applauded for enforcing this law (until the court ruling) and now his office has a chance to show its commitment to stopping fraudulent registrations by fighting this lawsuit. Reed has also advocated for an elected auditor in King County to replace the elections director who is appointed by the county executive. This proposal mirrors an EFF recommendation and would allow the citizens of King County to hold the chief elections official accountable for his performance. We hope Reed’s public support for this proposal is a sign he will continue to advocate measures that bring accountability to elections.
Throughout the ye ars, I have been a strong, outspoke for King County n advocate joining the other 38 counties by el tions chief. Like ec tin g their elecPierce and Snohom ish counties, ther elected County A e should be an uditor responsible for elections, reco ing in King Count rd s, and licensy. This is essential fo r three reasons. First, the positio n needs to be di rectly accountabl of King County. e to the voters Now, the position is two or three le County Executiv vels below the e. This position is cr ucial for our should answer to de mocracy and the people – not to a partisanly electe Second, the posit d official. ion needs to be a public advocate fo Throughout the ye r elections. ars, we watched th e King County el tion go down hill ec tio ns operain terms of staffi ng, equipment, an the County Exec d space. Once utive decided on a budget, the Man & Elections was no ag er of Records t allowed to public ly disagree……ev the County Counc en in front of il. In the other 38 counties, the Cou could appeal to th nt y Auditors e public for suppor t for the elections makes a huge diff process. That erence. Third, since the constitution and laws of the State give counties (rath of Washington er than the state) co ntrol over the elec we need to have tion process, the county with on e-third of the vote one who runs for rs elect someoffice based upon qualifications and minister elections ab ility to ad. I have talked with County Council members about th lighted to see they is. I’m deare moving ahead. Th is editorial does a of summing up th good job e current situatio n. – Sam
Perhaps most importantly and most directly tied to EFF member activities, Reed has publicly advocated that Washington should adopt an Arizona-style proof of citizenship requirement. The Arizona law was the first in the nation to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Voters can meet those requirements with a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers, or other easily accessible documents. Reed’s support for proof of citizenship is vital to ensuring only citizens can vote. The next step is for Reed to support a registration update. This Justice Departmentapproved idea would place all registrations on inactive status, pending a voter verifying his registration is accurate and providing proof of citizenship. If a voter failed to update his registration before an election, he could still vote a provisional ballot, which would be counted after he verified his registration and citizenship. Until a full update occurs there is no way to fully clean the state voter roll. Reed is listening to you. Please continue to let him know that Washington citizens deserve and demand nothing less than accurate and fair elections.