Kitsap Caucus

In January it became clear that the November general election would almost certainly be a race between Nathan Schlicher, the appointed Democratic incumbent, against Republican Jan Angel, a member of the House. As I write this neither of them have filed to run, so we are still operating on assumptions.

There have been cases in our recent political past where the gift of an appointment might payed dividends. Would Steve Bauer have had as easy a path to his election to the county commission, and then Rob Gelder had they not been appointed earlier? I doubt it. In those cases incumbency gave them a record and some kind of reputation.

Schlicher certainly benefits from incumbency as opposed to trying to challenge Angel with no official legislative experience. The questions I wanted to pose were how well appointed incumbents have done in the past, and in cases where appointed incumbents failed to be selected, what happened? Sunday’s piece answered those questions. We scheduled the piece for the Sunday before filing began and “Happy Mothers’ Day, everyone!” I looked at legislative historical records available on the Legislature’s website, as well as news archives, to get some context.

Some side issues, interesting on their own but not contributing to the questions asked Sunday, arose in conversations with candidates and others, as well as in the research.

Issue One: Because Schlicher was not elected, can he call himself the “incumbent?” Angel said she doesn’t think so, but the dictionary does not distinguish between whether someone was elected or appointed. In fact, for many people getting the approval of the local party would be harder than getting approved by voters. It is worthwhile to note the distinction, because for many the word “incumbent” implies a past election. President Gerald Ford was the incumbent president in 1976, even though he was elected with a 1-0 vote. That’s an old joke that ignores the fact that Ford was confirmed vice president 92-3 in the U.S. Senate and 387-35 in the House.

Issue Two: If the race is close, which there is sound reason to suspect it could be, so many factors could make the final difference. In fact, in close races it is nearly impossible to credit a win or blame a loss on any one thing. So many unseen things can effect the outcome. “When you lose by 191 votes the flap of a butterfly’s wings can make a difference,” said Randy Gordon, who was the Democrats’ appointed incumbent in the 41st District Senate seat. He lost by 194 votes, according to the state, but let’s not quibble. If he were to pick one ingredient it would be the national anti-incumbent, especially anti-Democratic incumbent, mood across the country. But it could have been any one of his votes in the Legislature, or a particular ad run against him and financed by national PACs, or the money dumped into his opponent’s campaign, or the Democratic Party not putting enough money into his campaign. He said state party officials admitted to him they goofed by not spending more on his race, but how much more would have created a victory? This could be one of those races where in every moment of being awake the candidate and their supporters will not have a moment they can afford to relax.

Issue Three: Both candidates said they will win by telling their stories to win the campaign. Angel added that she will raise money. Since the story ran Angel is reporting more in her campaign chest. On a separate blog a few of you took U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, to task for planning to host a Star Wars-themed fundraiser. I’ll be honest, I was surprised at that reaction. I assumed everyone knew that a big part of a member of Congress’ life is raising money to win the job again in two years. If you haven’t listened to the “This American Life” piece “Take the Money and Run for Office,” I suggest you set aside about an hour to get yourself schooled. That Kilmer is raising funds should not surprise anyone. I’m not saying it’s right, so don’t take me to task for cheerleading the fundraising. I’m not. But I have a difficult time faulting someone who knows he needs to raise funds to win a public office for doing just that. Until finance laws change, that is how it works. Even if finance laws do change, there is no guarantee this kind of election begging would go away. If your problem is that it was a Star Wars theme, maybe it’s worth asking what the harm is in having fun with an otherwise ugly task. If I was hosting fundraisers, you can bet one would be a Batman theme. And not the newer cool Batman, but the Adam West version. Then, every time more money came in I could flash signs that said, “Kapow!” or “Zowie!”

Jordan Schrader at the (Tacoma) News Tribune gives both sides of the story in the gamesmanship question about the 26th District.

“There are games being played. I can’t say there isn’t,” Port Orchard Republican Angel said. Her rival, Gig Harbor Democrat Schlicher, similarly decried “stupid games” and concluded in frustration: “This is why people hate government.”

Recall that this is the district in which the appointed incumbent state Sen. Nathan Schlicher, D-Gig Harbor, is likely to face off against state Rep. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard, to finish the last year of the term former state Sen. Derek Kilmer was elected to.

We addressed both sides of the issue when it comes to state Schlicher when we posted The Politics of Diabetes, because we did ask why he was the sponsor of the diabetes bill in the first place when it was sponsored by another legislator a year ago.

But then we posted about Schlicher’s Narrows Bridge toll bill getting killed by a floor vote to not have a floor vote. (Confusing. It just means they voted to not vote on the bill.) The bill had overwhelming support out of committee, but the majority coalition blocked it from the floor. What we didn’t know at the time was that Democrats got the question to the floor while Republican Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry was off floor feeding her baby. She came back to the floor to cast the coalition’s 25th vote against the bill.

After that incident I emailed Port Orchard state Rep. Jan Angel’s press rep the following:

We’ve paid some attention to how bills sponsored by state Sen. Nathan Schlicher have seemed to meet political reality. In one case he sponsored a bill that had Republican cosponsors, including from the committee. But at the last minute was pulled from committee executive session schedule. When another senator essentially forced a vote it went down on party lines. Yesterday another bill he sponsored was refused a floor vote by the Senate Majority Coalition after it had sailed through committee.

A cynic would suspect politics are at play.

A cynic would also assume that the same kind of politickacracy has been dumped on Jan Angel. I was hoping you might suggest some examples that come easily to mind.

Angel returned the request and left a voicemail message.

Angel said in her first session she had four good bills introduced, but only one passed. In the second session she introduced six bills and only one passed. She’s had three pass this year.

“This isn’t at all unusual for a freshman in their first session and for me in my second session and the fact that when you’re in the minority party, it’s difficult,” she said.

Angel said she got a bill out of committee unanimously, but it got killed on the floor, similar to what happened with Schlicher’s bridge toll bill.

“Have I had those things happen this session? You bet I have,” she said.

Angel has had three bills pass this session.

As Schrader writes in his story, proof that politics are at play is elusive. Leaders from both majorities deny it.

In an earlier story by John Stang of Crosscut about the bridge toll vote, there was a comment from Rodney Tom, a Democrat who leads the majority coalition, about Schlicher getting his one vote. “It is a Senate tradition that every senator — even those in the minority — gets one bill passed,” Stang wrote.

Schrader wrote that six senators, including Schlicher, have had just one bill pass. Not on that list are Republicans Sharon Brown or John Smith. Like Schlicher, they are appointed incumbents. Unlike Schlicher, both of them have five bills passed this session.

Up until 2010 we who watched elections closely thought we could count on later election numbers in Washington swinging in the Republican direction. In 2010 that changed, so I wanted to see this year whether Democrats had broken a trend, or started a new one.

Based on round numbers, no decimal points, it seems Democrats have again shown their ability to get out the vote late, at least locally. In looking at 10 races of interest to Kitsap residents, three races showed the same percentage points on Nov. 6 and Nov. 20, one swung more Republican and six favored Democrats as later numbers came in.

The governor’s race remained a 51-49 score. Charlotte Garrido still has 52 percent in her race against Linda Simpson in the county commissioner race, and state Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, maintained his 54-46 edge over Republican Doug Richards.

Meanwhile Democrat Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, gained a point in his bid for Congress over Republican Bill Driscoll. Democrat Rob Gelder remained at 55 in his county commissioner race, while Republican Chris Tibbs dropped a point. In the 23rd Legislative District Democrats Sherry Appleton and Drew Hansen gained a point, while Tony Stephens dropped one and James Olsen held steady. In the 35th Democrat Kathy Haigh went from leading with a 50-50 margin to a 51-49 edge over Dan Griffey.

The other race in the 35th saw the biggest swing, though it didn’t change the end result. Republican Drew MacEwen had a 55-45 edge over Lynda Ring-Erickson on election night and as of Tuesday that lead was down to 52-48.

The one race that went bluer redder was Republican Jan Angel’s race against Karin Ashabraner in the 26th District. Angel gained a point while Ashabraner lost one, with Tuesday’s margin at 59-41.

While I was away state Sen. Randi Becker, R-Eatonville, said she’ll introduce a bill to require ballots be on hand in county elections office by election day, rather than having them postmarked by then. She made the announcement on the 14th.

“We’re now more than a week past Election Day and in some areas of the state, people still don’t know who their elected officials are going to be. Those races may be determined by ballots that haven’t even been received yet. Washington has the slowest system in the country for receiving votes, and it’s simply one that needs to be improved.

“This isn’t just a matter of convenience. I can tell you personally that there are many things an incoming legislator must do to get up to speed for a legislative session. Delaying an outcome by days or weeks inhibits their ability to effectively represent their district,” Becker said in a statement.

Republicans did see some key races swing their way in at least one statewide race and in Southwest Washington. Republican Kim Wyman was behind on election night to Democrat Kathleen Drew in the race for Secretary of State, but that 50-50 race is now actually 50.5-49.5 in Wyman’s favor now. In Vancouver Republican Don Benton leads the 17th District state Senate race by 104 votes over Democrat Tim Probst, a margin that makes that race eligible for an automatic recount should the current difference hold. On election night Probst was winning. That race is key because it has the potential of swinging the balance of power in the Senate chamber if Republicans can woo enough Democrats over to form a coalition majority.

In April we told you that, yeah, that election for the one-month job in Congress might seem like it costs a lot of money, but at least there will be a lot to do. Surely there would be a lame-duck session so Congress could finish the work it was unwilling to do before the election.

Now there is a push, perhaps a quixotic one but a push nonetheless, to not have that lame-duck session. Three Senators are urging House leadership to get a budget passed in August or October, which would essentially make a lame-duck session unnecessary.

“Should Republicans fail to do this, Americans can expect another carefully choreographed crisis that will needlessly take government to the brink of a shutdown, without concern for voters, consumers and businesses that desperately need stability amid these fragile economic times.” — South Carolina Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, all Republicans.

George Behan, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, said the congressman would like to see a budget passed before August, too. “Norm believes it would be good for our economy if we got together,” Behan said.

It seems unlikely. A year ago Congress had three different proposals they could have at least accepted as frameworks for budget agreements and failed, Behan said. The guts of any of those could be used again, but “Politically it’s hard to imagine that happening.”

Many Republicans have pledged to not do anything that hints of raising taxes and Democrats are saying they’ll let all the Bush tax cuts expire, a pretty fair piece of leverage, Behan said.

It’s those tax cuts that are part of what an end-of-year session would likely address. A representative from the current 1st Congressional District could, in theory, be an important single vote.

If Congress doesn’t meet after the election, well, someone either gets to brag about being in Congress for a month or gets a head start on the other new members.

Most of our attention regarding campaign finance will be on the local impact and local sources of campaign money, but I thought you might take an interest in a story from the Washington Post.

Mitt Romney will very likely draw in more money than Barack Obama, but there’s little reason to suspect that will matter all that much. When I saw the headline for the story, Money gap may not matter so much in November, my first guess was that after so much money enough is enough. That was part of it.

“Nobody’s going to win or lose this election on the basis of not having enough money,” said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. “Each of them is going to have around $700 [million to] $800 million available. The idea that that’s not enough is just bizarre.”

Other issues are that it’s historically easier for a presidential challenger to outraise the incumbent and that in some ways a small donation is just as effective as a big one in terms of what you get from the donor besides the money.

It’s well worth the read.

The Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce hosted its first of five primary election debates this morning as part of its “Eggs & Issues” series. On this morning’s schedule was Republican James Olsen and Democrat Henning Larsen, both seeking to replace state Rep. Drew Hansen, D-Bainbridge Island, was not able to attend because of a prior engagement. Hansen represents the 23rd Legislative District, Position 2.

In Legislative District 26, Position 1, state Rep. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard is scheduled to debate Democrats Karin Ashabraner and Stephen Greer on July 10

The July 17 forum will include Republican Drew MacEwen, independent Glenn Gaither, Democrats Jeff Davis and Lynda Ring-Erickson.

Candidates for the District 2 county commissioner seat — incumbent Democrat Charlotte Garrido, Democrat Lary Coppola, Republican Linda Simpson and indedendant Kristine Danielson — will address the July 24 forum.

The final morning event before the primary will feature candidates for Superiort Court Judge, Court 7: Jennifer Forbes, Bill Houser, Karen Klein and Rob MacDermaid.

Each forum begins at 7:30 a.m. and will be at the Cloverleaf Sports Bar & Grill, 1240 Hollis Street. If you want to eat breakfast at the event, come prepared to pay for your own meal.

House Majority PAC plans to spend $800,000 on television advertising during the fall election season, with the money targeting the new 1st Congressional District.

The move is meant to counter what is expected to be an especially rich campaign spending season for backers of Republican candidates.

Across the country the House Majority PAC will team up with the Service Employees International Union to spend $20 million in 38 markets. The Seattle buy does not include SEIU money. But a joint press release sent out Monday indicated this is the “first stage” of airtime reservations.

Andy Stone, House Majority PAC spokesman responded by email saying the Seattle money is going entirely for the 1st Congressional District. Of the 38 markets in which the organizations plan to spend money, the $800,000 for Seattle buy is the sixth largest.

The press release follows:
(more…)

While attending the Rob McKenna fundraiser in Bremerton Thursday one of my first thoughts was of math.

Tables: 29
x Seats at each table: 8
= 232
x $125
= $29,000

There were a few empty seats in the back, but the $125 donation was a minimum. If everyone gave the maximum, $3,600, the total would be $835,200. The total is probably somewhere in between there and very likely closer to the first dollar figure. We’ll know a little more when the PDC reports come out next week itemizing donations from this week.

According to Thursday Public Disclosure Commission figures McKenna has raised $4,965,674.37, compared to Democratic contender Jay Inslee’s $5,365,475.95.

Inslee also stands to benefit from the $2.8 million that will be spent campaigning on his behalf by the union-backed PAC Our Washington.

There is no reason to suspect, however, that McKenna will not benefit from outside spending as well.

The National Institute on Money in State Politics reports that in the five years between 2005 and 2010 what independent groups spent targeting Washington candidates was about 45.3 percent compared to the money candidates raised themselves.

In 2010, when we didn’t have a governor race, the biggest independent spender in governors’ races across the country was the Republican Governors Association, about $26.5 million in just six races.

In Wisconsin’s recall election of Gov. Scott Walker, the local PAC for RGA spent $9.4 million on Walker’s behalf, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. About $5.7 million of that was in negative advertising against two Democrats who filed to run against Walker. In the end the RGA money spent on positive ads for Walker was about the same as the organization’s negative ads against the Democrats’ eventual nominee, Tom Barrett, about $3.7 million each.

Those figures are outside the $30.5 million Walker raised himself for the recall, compared to Barrett’s $3.9 million.

Inslee already has more than Barrett did, but assuming this race gets attention nationally, we are only seeing the beginning of how much money will be spent in Washington on the governor’s race. No poll is showing a runaway win for either candidate, so it’s easy to believe that more big money will be flowing into this state.

Kitsap County Republican Party Chairman Jack Hamilton will be a delegate at the Republican National Convention, Aug. 27-30, in Tampa. He will be joined by Gig Harbor’s Marlyn Jensen, who challenged state Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, for his seat in the Legislature in 2008.

Three other Kitsap residents are going as alternates: Donna Hamilton (Jack’s wife), Arna Souza and Willard Swiger.

Jensen and the alternates go representing the Sixth Congressional District. Jack Hamilton is going as an at-large pick.

The state Democratic Party is expected to release its list today.

The Seattle Times editorial board was critical of several would-be members of Congress who decided to run both for the temporary seat and the permanent one. I wish the issue were that easy to describe for us in Kitsap, but let’s save that conversation for later in this blog post.

The Times’ criticism points out that candidates like Darcy Burner, who was the first to declare she’d run in both races, get to raise twice as much money this way for mailers and the like, because she can raise money for two different elections. (Confused already? I don’t blame you. I’ll explain it all later. I keep promising that, I know.) I mention Burner specifically, because she’s the one who started the cascade of candidates running for the full two-year term that begins in January to also run for the one-month job (It might be longer. I know, that’s confusing.) That ends in January to fill the last month of Jay Inslee’s congressional term. He resigned earlier this year to focus on his bid for the governor’s office. Burner was joined in running for both seats by Democrats Suzan DelBene, Laura Ruderman and Darshan Rauniyar. Republican John Koster joined in as well. Democrat Steve Hobbs declined, saying the move by the other candidates was motivated by money. The Times editorial didn’t mention that independent candidate Larry Ishmael also declined.

The Times may be off the mark in question the point of a one-month congressional job. There could be some important items to vote on, such as the budget, the extension of the Bush tax cuts and an income tax deduction for Washington residents.

But I think the Times may also have a case in suggesting candidates will raise money for both races, but do you think anyone Kitsap County will see any mailers from candidates for the one-month job? The Times opines that all the benefit of the extra money will go toward winning the permanent seat.

So let’s again explain why this is happening.

First off, Jay Inslee resigned from Congress, and congressional officials said federal law stipulates that an election to replace him during his term must happen. If he had resigned with a month left that wouldn’t have been necessary, but he is out of the seat for long enough that congressional officials believe it merits electing a replacement.

Had this not been a redistricting year the state would have had the option of taking the winner of the general election and appointing him or her to the seat early. Because it’s a redistricting year and the 1st District boundaries have been changed dramatically, whoever gets elected in the 1st will be representing a vastly different area than the current 1st. So voters in Bainbridge would be represented for one month by someone they had no say in choosing.

So on the primary and general election ballot voters in about half of Kitsap County, the part currently in the 1st Congressional District, will pick a member to fill the remainder of Inslee’s term from about early December to early January and a congressman in the 6th Congressional District, with that term beginning in early January.

In the final candidate filing story last week I tried to simplify the discussion by writing this:

“Candidates for the new 1st Congressional District, which does not include any portion of Kitsap County, had all held back on running for the temporary seat, which carries the northern portion of the county and Bainbridge Island.”

I received an email from someone confused by that paragraph. A different person used the story comments to express befuddlement. I admit that there are times I can write things clearer than I do, but in this case I think the issue is confusing and difficult to boil down in a single sentence. I think I did pretty well, and it’s still confusing.

So let me try this.

If you live in the 6th Congressional District now, you have nothing to figure out.
If you live in the 1st Congressional District in Kitsap County, you will be electing two members of Congress this year. One will be in the 6th Congressional District, because beginning in January you will no longer be in the 1st. You will be in the 6th. That member of Congress will serve a regular term. The other member of Congress you elect will be in the 1st District and will only serve for the last month you will live in the 1st District.

Are we clear yet?

Few surprises from the first batch of candidate filings, unless you consider Tim Sheldon running for re-election in Mason County as commissioner a surprise.

You might.

In 2010 I wrote a story that included Sheldon’s sentiment that he wouldn’t run again for commissioner.

His eyesight had diminished to 20-800, he said Monday. He has since had surgery to fix glaucoma and his eyesight is back to 20-30, which he said is reason to consider returning. I don’t remember him bringing that up when he was driving me back and forth between Shelton and Olympia.

Sheldon also sees unfinished business ahead. I’ll probably write more for the first-day election filing story that will post later, including the fact that there are two challenger, Roslynne Reed and Randy Churchill.

Also filing are Byron Holcomb of Bainbridge Island for the temporary 1st Congressional District Seat. He was alone as of 1 p.m. Democrat Derek Kilmer is running Congress in the Sixth District, as is Republican Jesse Young. Sherry Appleton, a Democrat, has filed to run for re-election in her 23rd Legislative District House seat, while James Olsen has filed to run in the other 23rd District House seat.

The incumbent county commissioners Rob Gelder and Charlotte Garrido have filed to run for re-election. More candidates will have filed later this afternoon.

Three candidates are in for the U.S. Senate seat held by Maria Cantwell, including the incumbent.

Recently I was awarded a scholarship for a two-day conference in Washington, D.C. to attend classes on the ins and outs of what the Citizens United decision means for politics, and how I can find data about campaign spending in this new arena.

On Saturday, though, I got a great primer from the group at “This American Life.” As usual, the one hour provides so much information without making you feel like you were sitting in a class. It’s as entertaining as watching “Breaking Bad.” If you’re into politics at all, or you just care about your country and your government, take the hour you’ll need to listen to this.

So James Olsen, known for many things political but most recently candidate for the state House of Representatives this year and in 2010, sends out this email with the message:

Friends — I received this link in the email- Democrat Donkey Game. Oh, so true. You will recognize many of the Donkey gamers from around the area.

While his statement that he “received this link in the email” might be technically true, I wouldn’t blame if you suspect he knew it was coming.

In 2010 a guy in Colorado got wind of Olsen and did three anti-Olsen videos. The other two have a robot dancing in underwear. The following one has production problems, but it’s short and you get the point.

The Kitsap County Republican Party, in addition to caucusing on Saturday, will hold their annual Lincoln Day dinner on Friday. Scheduled to speak to the group is Rev. Wayne Perryman, whose bio lists him as a community activist and minister.

He is also a former talk-show host and has numerous videos on YouTube, including some appearances on conservative national shows.

Here is a story from The Sun in 2003. Perryman was born in Bremerton, it seems.

A video clip from his own site follows:
(more…)

National political conventions haven’t mattered since 1980, when the Democrats fought over rules about whether delegates should be locked in. Even then, the outcome seemed pretty certain, as it has in every convention since then and for quite a while before.

That could change this year, according to a piece written by Michael Medved in The Daily Beast. In the column, Republicans, Dissatisfied with Their Presidential Field, Dream of Deadlock, Medved contends there is a slight chance the GOP nominee might not be picked until the actual convention. Among the reasons is the lack of a true “Super Tuesday” this year and fewer states operating with a winner-take-all formula.

Of all the things Medved says, this to me is the most true:

This outcome appeals to all media outlets (which would relish the high drama and corresponding high ratings) as well as party organizers who would welcome the engagement of the grass roots in a fiercely competitive race and a visibly open convention.

I salivate at the prospect of a convention that matters. I asked my company to send me to both conventions in 2008, even offering to take a bus and find homes to crash in. The response from my bosses was that conventions are scripted infomercials. They were right. I don’t plan on repeating the request this year, but I’ll enjoy the festivities much more.

Where I disagree with the headline is that this is happening because Republicans are dissatisfied. While true that there probably is a lack of enthusiasm for any candidate other than Ron Paul, if party members were generally excited about more than one candidate the same scenario could exist. The truth is no one has managed to pull away. (Again, like I’ve said before, that’s an interesting expectation to have when there hasn’t been even a single caucus or primary.) The point is that the race is even enough that this next year offers the most promise we’ve seen in years that a primary process might not deliver a clear winner.

Here are a few items of interest to a post-Thanksgiving America. Excuse me, while I kiss this guy.

The Seattle Times reports the U.S. Department of Justice believes the Seattle Police Department’s policy of letting officers refuse to incriminate themselves is too broad and is applied to too many situations.

The Washington Post reports on an effort to get a middle-ground candidate on the 2012 ballot. The biggest question for me is raised in the story. Who is out there now who would be willing to sign on to this as a candidate running against someone else in the same party. Only someone with nothing to lose, methinks. That means someone who either doesn’t have a prayer of ever winning anyway, or someone who doesn’t care whether the party members get mad. A national version of Tim Sheldon, perhaps.

Obama’s campaign operation is working somewhat quietly in Chicago. The Washington Post reports on some of the pros and cons of being in Chicago and details a few of the efforts the group is undertaking.

I’m posting here a letter e-mailed by Tim Eyman on the heels of the loss on Initiative 1125, which would have restricted how highway tolls can be used. He first makes the case that initiatives are hard, in large part because you have to judge months ahead what the electorate will support. That much probably everyone would more or less agree with.

At least one of his other comments is worth wondering about in connection with local issues.

“We’ve learned that initiative campaigns are, by far, the most effective way to increase public awareness, public education, and public participation in public policy. Initiatives aren’t just about passing laws; they’re about lobbying the government. And one of the most important tools of lobbying is public awareness and public votes. $30 car tabs and the 1% property tax limit are two of the most prominent examples, but the seeds of victory for this year’s I-1183 were laid by last year’s I-1100. There are legions of additional examples where the lobbying effect of an initiative campaign layed the groundwork for later legislative action.“

So this makes me wonder about the vets and homeless levy that failed in a big way here in Kitsap County. It’s not similar to an initiative in how it was launched. This was not a grass roots initiative in which a number of voters gathered signatures. This was launched by government. But could the silver lining for the levy’s supporters be that the issue was raised at all?

Sure, the measure lost big time. But people are talking about it. Is there any chance the needs supporters identified will be met some other way?

Eyman’s letter follows.

(more…)

Tristan Baurick is writing a story on the changed political sign culture on Bainbridge Island. I’ve got a sign story of my own to tell.

On Aug. 29 Kitsap County commissioner candidate Chris Tibbs sent a letter to Doug Ellis, interim executive director at the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, and to Sam Reed, secretary of state, about a call made to a vendor of his.

Tibbs, a Republican, said that Dennis Peterson, owner of Kitsap Sign Co., told him Linda Gabriel, campaign manager for Rob Gelder, a Democrat running for the seat he was appointed to earlier this year, called Peterson’s business identifying herself as Tibbs’ campaign manager and asking to see paid invoices.

Gabriel has since said of Peterson’s contention, “If he told him that, he either was mistaken or not telling the truth, but I never said that to him.” Peterson himself has since said he thought that is what she said, but he may have not heard it correctly.

Tibbs’ letter was not an official complaint and he asked what Gabriel would be entitled to. Phil Stutzman from the PDC responded saying that Gabriel was entitled to see what she was asking to see. As for the misrepresentation, “The PDC has no authority to require a person to properly identify who they are when contacting a commercial advertiser, although we hope a person would properly identify him or her self.”

Gabriel had planned to have campaign volunteers go look at the invoices, she said, because Tibbs had not yet posted them with the commission, and there seemed to be far too many signs out there for the receipts that had been recorded. Tibbs has been, in his words, “aggressive” in getting lots of signs out there. She would have been entitled to go look. Vendors are required to show the paperwork they create when it involves campaigns for public office.

Gabriel didn’t send someone, because the receipts were then posted on the PDC site before that was necessary.

That vendors are required to show that info was news to Peterson, because he had never been asked. That’s not surprising, because normally the records are readily available online before it gets to going to vendors. In this case they were not, according to Gabriel.

Personally, I think either Peterson misheard Gabriel, or Gabriel misspoke without realizing it. She said it would be stupid for her, someone who was readily identified as the campaign manager for one candidate, to try to sneak one by a vendor by claiming to be the campaign manager for someone else. I agree. That would be stupid. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that someone from a campaign might try to pull a fast one, but not something so easy to disprove and not for something she was entitled to see anyway.

What further makes me think it was an honest mistake by someone is that Peterson, when I talked to him on the phone, didn’t know who Gelder was. He knew Tibbs, since he’d printed the signs for him. I don’t think Peterson was lying. I think he thought Gabriel said something she did not.

One thing Gabriel and Peterson agree on was that neither liked how they were being treated on that phone call between each other.

A lot of what burns campaign workers at election time is what happens to their signs. Every year, since 2004 anyway, we reporters are asked to look into what campaign workers allege is vandalism to campaign signs. In 2004 there was clear targeting of many George Bush signs. Some of John Kerry’s signs were abused, but it did seem that Bush signs were trashed in far greater numbers.

Since that election I have heard complaints every year, mostly from Republicans. James Olsen on Bainbridge Island has consistently created a list of the destruction to his signs on Bainbridge Island.

On Monday I spoke with Jim Sommerhauser, who until this year could be seen every election planting campaign signs for the Democratic Party. Sommerhauser said a campaign can count on losing about half of its signs during a campaign. The vast majority of those losses, he said, are caused by what he described as “kids” going after an easy target. He said most of it is not really aimed at a candidate for reasons other than availability, but sometimes kids respond to their parents’ open opinions about candidates by acting out in ways an adult would not. About 10 percent of the vandalism, he said, is intentional.

Another cause is when candidates don’t know the rules about where signs can go. State right of way is off limits. County right of way is fine for the smaller signs in most of the county, as long as they’re not put on mowed areas or have the wire holders. On Bainbridge Island the property owner next to the county right of way must be notified. In Bremerton and Port Orchard signs are not allowed on public right of way, period. All this is according to a rule sheet Sommerhauser hands out to other Democrats.

Sommerhauser, on that same sheet, advises how to place signs to reduce vandalism, but also makes the case to not overdo them. He says candidates should not try to “outsign” opponents, and that a sign in someone’s yard carries endorsement value a sign along a random point in the road does not.

Tibbs has tried to outsign Gelder, and for the most part he’s done it. You see one Tibbs sign, you might see six. There is also good evidence to support that Tibbs signs are being pulled and dumped on the ground in greater numbers than anyone else’s. The picture above comes from Tibbs’ Facebook site. The site isn’t dedicated to sign vandalism, it’s for his campaign, but he did post some pictures.

Law enforcement has not generally placed a high priority on policing this stuff when they hear about it. It’s not that they don’t respond to calls, but I haven’t heard of too many people being caught. I’d like to see someone vandalizing a sign just so I could get to the motive.

Sometimes the vandals are doing it in public enough that another citizen will notice. Here is an audio recording of a woman’s call to 911 when she saw someone dumping signs.

signvandal

Tibbs provided the audio here and showed me the police report. That report shows several signs on the ground. They all belong to Tibbs. Other signs, for Bremerton City Council candidate Faye Flemister are left standing. The two theories are that his signs are being targeted either because he is a Republican, or because there are so many of his signs out there, way more than anyone else. I’m guessing some of you have an opinion about that.

This week I got a thrill down my leg watching the CNN/Tea Party Express Republican presidential candidate debate. I only watched the first hour, which means I missed some of the more interesting moments. Nonetheless, I got a charge I hadn’t expected. I really thought that after 2008 and 2010 I was still pretty exhausted by presidential elections.

Not so, it turns out. The season keeps getting earlier and earlier so the process does run the risk of running out of gas even before Iowa. If enough candidates dropped out based on polling numbers, we could have all but one candidate from each party out of the running by January, with primaries and caucuses being nothing more than wastes of your campaign donations.

Still, I enjoyed Monday’s debate, and it got me excited for 2012. Someday I’ll admit regretting that statement, but for now I’m still psyched.

If nothing else, it gives us a chance to laugh at things like this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 1776 – Ye Cobblestone Road to the White House – Tough Tea Party Crowd
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

All four redistricting commissioners would take all of Kitsap County and make it completely fall within the Sixth Congressional District, moving the First District completely across Puget Sound.

Even though this is the case now, in theory this could change. The commissioners vary drastically on where they put the new Congressional District. Any jockeying of that could, in theory, result in some lines moving.

If Jay Inslee were not running for governor, it’s not likely this would have happened. At least Bainbridge would likely have remained in the First District. Again, politics are not supposed to be part of the equation, but a long time ago it was explained to me that the commission’s first unofficial task is to protect the incumbents.

We’ll post more later.