5,224

The Secretary of State’s office should have heeded election reform guidance when it was first offered by the many groups that desire true election reform. Now Secretary Reed is caught up in a boondoggle of mediocre measures to implement Washington’s new statewide voter database.

The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required all states to create a statewide voter registration database by January 1, 2006. Each state was given the opportunity to customize their methods of doing so. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based non-profit public policy group, recommended a list of best election practices for Washington to adopt. Since then, Sec. Reed and the legislature have neglected to enact much of EFF’s measures for true reform.

One recommendation was to place all voters on an inactive status. Voters would be required to update their registration by mail or in person in order to vote a regular ballot in the next election. Anyone failing to do so would be able to vote a provisional ballot.

Just yesterday, the Secretary of State’s office acknowledged that the new voter database found at least 5,224 dead people registered to vote in Washington and more than 3,000 voters registered twice. While these registrations are still being investigated, we are “assured” that there is no election fraud or misconduct that occurred as a result of these findings.

Not so fast. Have we already forgotten that previous elections in Washington didn’t exactly go off without a hitch?

It needs to be made clear that the only way to restore the confidence of the people is to enact serious election reform before November’s mid-term elections. By clearing all voter rolls and requiring voters to reactivate their registrations is one of the best ways to restore public trust. While this may be an inconvenience to many, it is a necessary step for Washington to again have free and fair elections.

View the Seattle Times story here.

Higher salaries, not better education is WEA motive

I came across this statement on WEA’s website. For a group who consistently touts the mantra, “it’s for the children,” it is ironic that pay is the WEA’s most important political goal. Here’s what is straight from the WEA website:

Compensation remains WEA members' top priority
· Voters passed Initiative 732 by nearly 63 percent in 2000. WEA was the major force behind the initiative. It provided all public school employees with an annual state-funded cost-of-living salary adjustment. But when the Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke suspended I-732 in 2003, many WEA members lost thousands of dollars in salary and retirement benefits.

· Restoring funding for our COLAs in the 2005-2006 school year will be a top priority in the 2005 legislative session. Support for I-732 was a major issue in WEA PAC recommendations during last fall's elections.

Keep in mind that you will always here the WEA cry wolf about good education and student needs. But to them, teacher strikes for top pay are apparently in the children’s best interest. Oh, and this means they will always protect current jobs. They are not for the creation of new jobs.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

On that note, I also reference you to a formal opinion released by Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office this week. The opinion states that “state and local public employees do not have a legally protected right to strike. No such right existed at common law, and none has been granted by statute.”

This marks contrast between McKenna and his predecessor, now-Gov. Gregoire—who was often caught in bed with Washington’s education unions.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has spearheaded this issue and published a HB 2808 would allow courts to impose up to $10,000 a day for violators.

This should send a message to public employee unions that their days as free-range policy manipulators are drawing to a close.

Legislators have until Friday’s (Feb. 3) “cut off” date to pass the bill out of House Commerce and Labor committee.

A 'confident' 'warning'

Gee…how about an award for most overused buzz word of the day? Today’s SOTU Headlines:

· Washington Post: Bush Warns Against Shrinking Global Role

· NY Times: President Warns About Dangers for Nation in Isolationism

· Drudge: BUSH WARNS OF MIDEAST OIL DEPENDENCY

· UK Telegraph: Bush warns of America's oil addiction

· WBNS Ohio: Bush warns against economic 'complacency'

· News24.com Bush warns Hamas

· Radio New Zealand: Bush warns against oil dependency in keynote speech

· Irish Independent: We must end oil addiction, warns Bush in crucial s

· Sydney Morning Herald: US hooked on oil, warns Bush

· The Scotsman UK: Bush stands firm but warns of 'oil addiction'

· Boston Herald: Bush — growing challenges: Prez warns of fuel imports, skills ...

Honorable Mention: ‘Confident’

· Vancouver Columbian: Bush Confident Despite Mounting Challenges

· Seattle P-I: President: 'Confident in our plan'

· The San Jose Mercury News: Bush shows renewed confidence

If not for spite, then what for?

It appears that eminent domain has a very broad boundary. Based on a recent Supreme Court decision, the high court ruled in a brief written by Justice David Souter (See the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision) that local governments may seize private property if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed – all under the umbrella of eminent domain.

But America would not be the great country that it is were it not for citizens to manipulate judical rulings into bad karma. One group has walked Souter’s brief right up his own doorstep. On June 27, Freestar Media, LLC informed the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire that it wants to begin the permit process to build a hotel on land owned by Justice Souter. If successful – and it’s quite possible – Souter’s estate could become the “Lost Liberty Hotel.”

After all, wouldn’t a new hotel generate more tax revenue for Weare than a single-family residence?

Read more from Freestar’s press release here.

Back from the dead

It wasn’t the end of the world. Not even close. I thought a two month hiatus would only give me time to rejuvenate myself with ideas for Spike, apparently my readers thought different. I have received demand after demand to return from alcoves of the easy life. So it is with this demand that I fulfill those who frequent this site.

There is much to be said of the last two months. Politically speaking, I have missed many opportunities for prime postings to the blogosphere. Our beloved Republican gubernatorial hopeful Dino Rossi called it quits; Senate D’s continue to filibuster and propagandize their wretched minority standing, even amidst an upcoming Supreme Court nomination; and more importantly, Discovery Institute has snubbed Darwinian strongholds by hosting a showing of the Priveledged Planet film on their own turf at the Smithsonian – my dear friend Logan Gage even bought a new suit for this one.

For now, I leave it all to Sharkansky and the rest. There is no shortage of blogging on these issues. So rather, I’ve left myself to enjoying some time off from the hustle and bustle of political occupation and instead turn to more personal matters. In just under six weeks I will say “I do” to the woman of my life. The process of prepare for this momentous task usurps all things political.

However, that does not spell the end for Spike the Underdog. I am back to blogging, though not quite as often as previously observed on this site. At least not yet. I am going to continue to enjoy my summer, and focus on my new marriage. Until then, enjoy snippets here and there. I’ll be back with full momentum in the fall. Cheers!

A blog on hiatus?

You may have noticed that there hasn’t been a post on the Underdog since late April. For that, I do apologize. This lack of blogging warrants at least an explanation to those who read my thoughts. I have been on hiatus for the last month; traveling, relaxing, and pondering many thoughts as well as experimenting with a new workout regimine so that I my improve my honeymoon physique.

I assure all of you that Spike the Underdog shall return soon. There is much to write about including more updates on the Senate filibusters, the Washington Gubernatorial trial, how I stole David Broder’s cab in D.C. and more.

Don’t lose heart yet, more is coming…

Just another day in DC-land

Maybe it’s because of jealousy. Maybe I am star struck. Or maybe this is just plain amusing to me as a shameless political hack. Below is an email I received from my buddy Logan summarizing part of his day while in between Senate meetings on the Hill:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:45 PM
To: Matthew Cole
Subject: My meeting on the Hill

Today I saw Jim Angle from Fox News. We were both stuck at the Capitol and couldn't get in the building because it was in lock down. It was locked down because Cheney was coming out and going to an office building...and about 25 other senators. I saw Carl Levin, Dick Lugar, and all the bad boys coming my way.

Then, after my meeting in the Capitol, I went out into the hallway to take a phone call. While dialing, I looked up and Hillary Clinton (I am not kidding) was in my face! I almost screamed! I repeat, I am not making this up. It was the scariest experience of my life, and I vowed then and there never to tell it to children under 12--I'll keep it PG-13.

Cross my heart and hope to...well, never mind.

Logan

Neo-Darwinism’s new foe

In his homily during his installation mass, Pope Benedict XVI gave a blunt criticism of the evolution theory, calling it ‘meaningless.’ This is a good day for science as it has found a powerful public ally. The new Pope may set the stage for a full assault on materialism, according to the Center for Science and Culture's blog Evolution News and Views. The Pope’s remarks are quoted below.

Today too the Church and the successors of the Apostles are told to put out into the deep sea of history and to let down the nets, so as to win men and women over to the Gospel - to God, to Christ, to true life. The Fathers made a very significant commentary on this singular task. This is what they say: for a fish, created for water, it is fatal to be taken out of the sea, to be removed from its vital element to serve as human food. But in the mission of a fisher of men, the reverse is true. We are living in alienation, in the salt waters of suffering and death; in a sea of darkness without light. The net of the Gospel pulls us out of the waters of death and brings us into the splendour of God's light, into true life. It is really true: as we follow Christ in this mission to be fishers of men, we must bring men and women out of the sea that is salted with so many forms of alienation and onto the land of life, into the light of God. It is really so: the purpose of our lives is to revealGod to men. And only where God is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

*Bold italics added for emphasis

Read the full version of Pope Benedict XVI’s homily here.

Political PMS

Yesterday the Democrat’s transportation budget failed miserably in the House after a party line vote in the State Senate last Wednesday. The bill received a 45-53 vote with many Democrats voting against it. Freshman Democrats from swing districts voted ‘nay’ in a spirit of self preservation.

One of my favorite comments from House D’s of the day came from the Cruella De Vil-like majority leader, Lynn Kessler (D-Hoquiam). Kessler has touted two contradictory messages throughout this year’s session, that it is the majority’s “right to to rule” and that “bipartisan” support is expected. In the Sunday Times Kessler said of the failed vote:

"That's not a bipartisan vote," House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, said furiously.

Kessler said business leaders needed to step up the pressure on Republicans. "The business community promised us we would get a bipartisan vote," Kessler said. "This didn't turn out to be even close."

Kessler pitched a fit that Republicans wouldn’t join her caucus like she wanted. To her the majority party should rule and the minority should follow, even while not including the Republicans in key discussions.

Yesterday’s floor action on transportation was one of the most glorious political events of the session. Let me break this down for you. House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-Seattle) originally said he would not bring the Transportation budget up for a vote unless he had at least 18 Republicans voting for it. When the bill finally came to a vote, he got only eight.

Anytime there is a controversial vote, or one that can potentially limit Democratic wins come election time, the Speaker has allowed his more vulnerable members to vote against it. Chopp and his Democrats needed bipartisan support for the bill so they could share the blame in the ‘06 Elections. While some GOP members caved, it wasn’t enough to pass the bill.

The Transportation package is not entirely about transportation. It is about elections. Every Republican vote in favor of the bill is a vote that lets a vulnerable Democrat off the hook. Why would Republicans want to cave to Kessler’s strategy at all? To me, this is the Democratic arrogance of power. The Democratic Caucus has all but expected their Republican counterparts to help them out. They have run amok with their rule and grown blind to opposition until it foils their plans.

Deputy Republican Leader Mike Armstrong (R-Wenatchee) is the possessor of my other favorite quote of the day. He said, "We've heard that it's the right of the majority to rule. Well, rule." Armstrong is a very big man. Naturally, when he speaks he commands authority.

Many times he has walked past my desk towards my boss’s office. According to him, my job is to “block” him from just waltzing in “without an appointment.” Armstrong doesn’t need an appointment since my boss works for him, and there is no way in hell I would try to block him anyway – but this is the presumption in the joke. Metaphorically, he conveyed the same message yesterday to Democratic Leadership. They are not going to block his caucus on this one.

A transportation budget of their own doing
Many arguments made for this budget concern safety issues. The Alaska Way viaduct is aged, fragile, and falling apart. The same goes for the 520 Bridge. Democrats insist that a 9.5 cent gas tax is needed to predominantly Seattle-based projects. While Republicans agree that these projects are needed, don’t be fooled into buying liberal arguments that this tax is needed now.

First of all, the earliest construction can begin on these bridges is 2010 – with or without funding today. That’s two bienniums away. We don’t have to fund it this year when gas prices are higher than ever. And we don’t need to do it with an almost 10 cent per gallon tax increase.

Secondly, unlike the operating budget, the transportation budget does not have to be passed by the end of business today. Realistically it can wait another session; but the Democrats do not want to revert to that option because voting on a tax increase in an election year is always a political faux pas.

Republican Leader Bruce Chandler (R-Granger) has made it clear to Democrats; we will help you but you need to invite us to the table:

“Their insistence on bipartisan votes is confusing since they have not once come and asked for our help on the operating budget. In fact they passed a bill on near party-line vote last week that allows them to raise taxes for the operating budget without a simple majority instead of a two-thirds majority,” said Chandler. “They said the ‘majority needs to be able to rule.’ Apparently that doesn’t apply to transportation.

“Now they’ve tied the operating budget to the transportation plan, so our response is simple: Let’s balance the operating budget without a tax increase and we’ll work with them on the transportation funding plan,” Chandler said. “The Democrat operating budget proposal is unsustainable. It spends beyond our means, requiring tax increases and leading to future budget deficits. Unless we demonstrate that the state is using the taxpayers’ money wisely, they can’t make a case for higher taxes.”

Until then, it looks like Chopp and Kessler will have to let their party take the hit. Everyone involved is still not sure what will happen next in the last hours of the session. One thing is clear though, the Democrats are not as in control as they thought.

What's that smell?

"My sense is that most in the caucus are extremely reluctant to walk in with a new majority and start passing new taxes."

Senator Craig Pridemore (D-Vancouver) following his election to the Senate last fall. Pridemore voted in favor of the operating budget with $500m in new taxes.

EFF: Gregoire recognizes success of Rossi budget

Below is a press release from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Their remarks are sufficient enough that I need not add my own:

PRESS RELEASE

April 22, 2005 Contact: Booker Stallworth, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482

Gregoire highlights state's nomination for award for no-new-taxes budget written by Sen. Dino Rossi

OLYMPIA—On April 20, Governor Christine Gregoire issued a press release highlighting the state being a finalist for Harvard’s “Innovation in Government Award.” Washington was nominated for the award because of its use of the priorities of government (POG) budget model in crafting a no-new-taxes budget in 2003. Then-Senator Dino Rossi used POG to write the 2003-05 budget, which he prioritized within available revenue despite facing more than a $2 billion budget deficit.

Gregoire’s release read in-part: “Washington’s pioneering budgeting method—which follows a process to prioritize state services within available resources—is among 18 government initiatives from across the nation to emerge as finalists out of an initial field of more than 1,000 applicants.”

The Governor went on to say that she “used the POG process to prepare the budget[she] proposed…,” even though her budget exceeds available revenue.

Abandoning POG, a majority of legislators are now set to approve a record $26 billion 2005-07 budget that relies on nearly $500 million in tax increases, raids of dedicated accounts and other one-time budget gimmicks. Based on the Democrats’ planned budget expenses, the state will have a budget reserve of less than one percent to address any unforeseen emergency.

To implement the tax increases necessary to reach their record level of spending, Democrats altered the voter-approved I-601 spending limit to allow them to raise taxes with a simple majority vote and to redefine the state’s spending limit for the 2007-09 budget so state spending can grow at an even faster pace than currently authorized.

“Since the governor ran on a no-new-taxes platform, raising half a billion dollars in tax increases and gutting the voter-approved spending limit is nothing short of a betrayal,” said Jason Mercier, budget analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “A tax increase is a tax increase, no matter what label you slap on it.”

“The governor appears not to understand what prioritizing within available resources means,” said Mercier. “Raising taxes by half a billion dollars to increase state spending by nearly 12 percent is not prioritizing spending within available resources. This budget is not based on priorities of government— it’s a $26 billion tax-and-spend deficit maker.”

###

The discontinuity of the Democratic Caucus

Last Friday, the House voted narrowly (and twice) to pass legislation that suspends I-601. If you remember, this is the famous voter initiative that requires a supermajority (two-thirds) vote of the legislature to increase taxes.

Among the Democrats voting against this bill were Representative Kelli Linville (D-Bellingham), Rep. Tami Green (D-Tacoma), Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor) and Reps. Dawn Morrell (D-Puyallup) and Rep. Larry Springer (D-Kirkland)…actually strike that; Reps. Morrell and Springer voted against it before they voted for it. The vote was taken twice because the first time it didn’t receive a Constitutional majority of 50 votes. The Democrats did not like the first outcome of the vote and a motion to reconsider was made so the D-caucus could whip come of their members back. Before you applaud the other three for a brief stint of conservative voting, consider this:

Just a week earlier the House passed its budget bill that includes a tax increase of nearly a half billion dollars and a 12% increase in spending – the highest in a decade! Linville, Green and Kilmer all voted in favor of this bill.

The Democratic controlled House and Senate needed to suspend I-601 to make their budget package work because they knew they didn’t have a supermajority to pass the tax increases in either chamber. So how can these legislators vote in favor of a half-billion dollar tax hike, and then vote against the mechanism to make this possible? Clearly theirs is a political interest rather than a representative one. Kilmer, Green and Springer are all freshmen and have voted conservatively all session long to protect their vulnerable seats. Linville is a legislator who will always ride the fence and please both sides of her constituency and never really takes a stand on these huge issues.

What this comes down to is job security before representation. It’s not that these legislators don’t agree with the tax and spend mentality. Keep that in mind when their voting record is brought up in next year’s elections. They are just as much to blame as the rest. This is a ideological conflict, not a political one.

Recommended read: 'Born-Again Democrats?'

If you are looking for a good read today, I refer you to the Center for Responsible Politics. Today's post is about the Democratic Party's new strategy to get involved in the values debate. While Conservatives have successfully captured that demographic, and while the religious voice seems to matter more in public discourse than it has in the last decade, Democrats are seeing the need to jump on the bandwagon.

This is ultimately a fatalistic strategy for them. Christian Americans are drawn to the political right because it is the ideology that promotes their values. Conservatives exist because of that base. Yet, Democrats appear to think that they can quote Jesus and attend church rallies to have the same captivating effect. There is no having it both ways. The religious demographic is based on moral fabric. Democrats want to court churchgoers, but don’t want to give up their positions on gay marriage, abortion, or stem cell research/human cloning. It’s an all or nothing base. Until liberals give up their secular doctrine, their efforts are in vain.

Read the CRP post here. So far it’s my favorite read of the day.

The ‘awful’ session

To quote State Senator Dale Brandland (R-Bellingham), “We’ve had an awful session.” Brandland uttered those words just before storming off the Senate floor last week infuriated by anonymous calls to his office making lewd character accusations.

Bawdy phone calls aren’t the only reason this session has been awful. Democrats have run amok with their majorities in both houses and with their so-called governor. At least twice they have unraveled the will of voters by suspending or lifting laws enacted through citizen initiatives. First in suspending I-601, an initiative passed in 1993 mandating a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature to raise taxes. Last weekend the House and Senate voted narrowly to lift that mandate and delivered a half billion dollar tax increase with just a simple majority.

Yesterday the Senate approved its transportation budget, again with tax increases. It also voted to successfully repeal the $30 car tabs that passed by a strong voter majority 6 years ago in I-695. Now citizens are facing a $10-$20 increase in their car tabs. This shouldn’t bode well for residents of rural eastern Washington. Most of the funding will go towards mega-transportation projects in the Seattle/Puget Sound area.

I guess I can forget about having the Guide Meridian widened in Whatcom County, damn those Canadians. I digress.

Tim Eyman, the somewhat infamous voter initiative tycoon said of the vote on Wednesday night, "I have never seen such open hostility to the voters' having their voices heard.” No kidding. Eyman fans need not worry, though. He's planning an initiative next year to undo the legislature’s undoing.

These are shameful acts of arrogance. Considering that both of the above mentioned initiatives passed by strong voter majorities, what right does the legislature have to reverse them? When a representative of the people votes contrary to the direct will of his constituency, he has rendered himself a useless part of the Republic.

Voters should take note of this session. They should remember their 37.5 cents per gallon tax (That’s the newly passed 9.5 cents on top of the existing 28 cents) as they simultaneously watch their gas prices soar from external factors. And they should remember this session when they have to front 10% more for their plasma TV warranty at Best Buy because we forgot to tax it before. Further, they should remember this session when the have to pay estate tax, sin tax, and high surcharges at the county auditor’s office.

They should take note and remove legislators like Rep. Dawn Morrell (D-Puyallup) and Rep. Kelli Linville (D-Bellingham) for their flip flopping on these major issues in the ’06 mid-term election.

My prediction is that this session is the undoing of democratic majorities in the legislature.

Rightfully so.

Possible template changes

You may notice periodic face lifts to this blog. I apologize if it confuses anyone. Spike the Underdog is still searching for an aesthetic appeal appropriate for its audience. Having a graphic design background, this type of thing becomes a never-ending quest. Bare with me through these interval changes.

The Celebrity Death Match...of scientists

Today’s favorite read comes from the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. It’s no secret that I have strong leanings toward DI’s work. I am even a member of the organization. This is not in vain. DI has some great stuff to be said.

This week a debate on Intelligent Design and Evolution was hosted by the Discovery Institute at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The debate featured Discovery scholar Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. William Provine, the Charles Alexander Professor of Biology at Cornell University defending Evolution.

The CSC blog posted a summary of the debate. I encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to read it. You should especially read closely the brief by Discovery’s Logan Gage. Gage is a colleague of mine and a rising star on this issue. He is also quite possibly the smartest young whip under the age of 25 in all the 7 continents (note that I am 26).

You can find that post here.

Larry David drives a Prius, so should you

I realized on my way to work this morning that I have never heard of or seen a Toyota Prius before I moved to Olympia. Here at the state capital, those cars are all over. Even state agencies buy them for fleet vehicles.

I have no problem with hybrid vehicles. They are energy efficient, and economically sound. They are even making them up to standards with normal cars. A colleague blogged a while back (here) about the 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid. It has just as much power as its all gasoline sibling.

But when did the car you drive become a political statement? Hmph. Superfluous.

Best of the Web rails Washington Dems

This is a great bit from Taranto’s Best of the Web. I plan to blog about this subject a little more later today:

Democrats Against Democracy
The Seattle Times reports on the latest goings-on in the Washington state Legislature in Olympia:

House Democrats yesterday cleared the way for tax increases by passing a bill that would let lawmakers raise taxes with a majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote now required.

Senate Bill 6078 would suspend part of Initiative 601, the spending-limit measure Washington voters approved in 1993, and make it possible for Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate to raise taxes without Republicans going along. It passed 50-43, with four Democrats siding with Republicans and voting against it.

Some may see an inconsistency in these Democrats opposing supermajority requirements while favoring the Senate filibuster in the other Washington. But the Washington state supermajority, unlike the U.S. Senate filibuster, was passed by the voters, so the Dems are entirely consistent in opposing democracy.

Defend marriage in once sentence or less

Today, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the “one sentence marriage amendment”. The amendment is geared to advance the debate on the marriage issue more quickly. Several times before the marriage act has been stalled in Congress, but Brownback is hopeful that his new amendment will simplify the definition of marriage.

According to his Senate staff, Brownback “feels very strongly that in order to advance the debate on this issue we needed to have more alternatives on the table, and, as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, he believes it to be is obligation to see that such a debate could proceed efficiently.”

Here is the actual language of the Senator’s amendment:

“Section 1: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Section 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This amendment looks to present one more option on this hotly contested issue. While stalwart actions against this definition of marriage are still expected, I am hopeful that Congress will enact legislation that provides a unified definition of marriage as being between a man and woman only.

As I receive more information on this issue, I will continue to post it. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts.

Pirates of the Senate

At first even I was fooled. Republicans in Congress are trying to abolish the time-honored filibuster? Of course, then I had to bone up on my research and get the facts straight. This was just Democratic hoopla and minority bickering. Hill insiders tell me that we will begin seeing Republicans hammer the liberal rhetoric on this issue in the coming weeks.

The truth is that Senate Republicans are only attempting to restore the “advice and consent of Constitutional obligations of the Senate for judicial nominees.” In layman’s speak, Senate leadership is proposing to reconsider cloture* rules on judicial nominees. This isn’t an elimination of the filibuster by any means.

Democrats are once again flip-flopping. Ten years ago the Democrats tried to abolish the filibuster altogether. Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes all wanted to end the filibuster permanently. Now they want to "preserve" it?

In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (See Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95)

Nor is changing these rules unconstitutional as some would have you believe. Senate debate is governed by rules adopted by the Senate every two years at the convening of each new Senate. The number of votes for cloture has gone up and down throughout the years. Originally two-thirds (67 votes) was required to end a filibuster. Those rules were eventually changed to three-fifths (60 votes).

Ironically, those who allege the unconstitutionality of this issue are forgetting that it is the responsibility of the Senate to confirm presidential nominees under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. To block votes on judicial nominees negates legislative obligations prescribed in our legal framework.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has previously made proposals to adjust the rules so that a simple majority (51 votes) is required to end debate on judicial nominations only. The recent hype on the so-called “nuclear option” is to revisit this proposal to minimize the amount of votes needed to end debate.

This is largely a maneuver to fight fire with fire. Democrats in the Senate have been using the filibuster to block most of President Bush’s judicial nominations. This is a cheap political move lacking the refinements required of such a prestigious body. It is a misuse of the filibuster which was originally intended to block debate only on policy issues, but never on judicial nominations. Republican leadership is simply proposing that the Senate return to it’s Constitutional duties and move on with the business of the government.

Liberals argue that Republicans pulled the same tactics on Clinton nominees. The truth is that President Clinton’s nominees were not filibustered and never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied confirmation through a filibuster. According to David Reinhard of The Oregonian, the confirmation rate for Bush nominations is the lowest of any modern president. Reinhard says that,

“A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

There was a record number of Clinton nominees to the federal bench that were confirmed in 1994 under a Democratic majority in the Senate. Fifty-four of these nominees were pushed through in the 3 months prior to the 1994 elections. Conversely, ten of fifty-two circuit court nominees from the Bush White House have been filibustered according to a recent AP story (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05). Blocking votes on judicial nominees is unprecedented.

This is an issue of principle, not politics. The Senate should be concerned with fulfilling its constitutional obligations. Either it confirms or doesn’t confirm judicial nominees. To thwart that function is to shut down a major tenant of government, and the democratic process itself.

In a press conference yesterday, Senator Frist said, “At the end of the day, I fundamentally believe that advice and consent under the Constitution of the United States of America means that we should be given the opportunity to vote. And that's all that we're asking for. We're going to continue to work in that regard.”

The President’s nominees deserve a fair up or down vote. If these judges are as poor a selection as Senators like Minortity Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) say they are, then let the Senate decline their confirmation by vote. Anything else is poor gamesmanship.

In many respects this issue has been blown out of proportion. Legislative rules in both Houses of Congress are often amended. The purpose of the “nuclear option” is to advance the purpose of the U.S. Senate. For certain Senators to block that process makes me question whether they know why they are there to begin with.


*Cloture is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes. Source: Glossary of Senate Terms