Islam: Religion of contradiction

I have been reluctant to join in the anti-Islam overtures that have paraded many conservative columns lately like that of Ann Coulter. Admittedly, I think that Coulter and the like have made a valid argument that contradicts Islam’s slogan as a “religion of peace.” My voice on that matter has largely been diplomatic. I am hesitant to call Muslims names and beat on their religion. I don’t think this tactic does anything to resolve the post-September 11 tensions that exist. Nor do I believe it will curb the tendency of Muslims to act out violently. Positive reinforcement has been my mantra.

And yet, I am continuously disappointed at the results of that approach. My own patience grew thin when Muslims around the world responded in violent overdramatic fashion to the infamous Danish cartoon incident.

Muslims insisted that a visual depiction of the Prophet Mohammed was against the laws of their faith. No matter that the rest of the world may not agree. They were to abide by Islamic law, too.

The message: Respect our faith. Okay, after the flag burnings and rioting and violence and even death, we get the message. No more Mohammed in cartoons (see the latest South Park/Comedy Central controversy in case you’re not sure).

Turn now to a new story. Surfing through the news sites today I read this headline: Palestinians: Tel Aviv Bombing Legitimate. Here’s what happened:

TEL AVIV, Israel - A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49 in the deadliest Palestinian attack in more than a year.

The Palestinians' new Hamas leaders called the attack a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression." Israel said it held Hamas ultimately responsible — even though a different militant group, Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility — and would respond "as necessary."

A radical Islamic group took pride and credit in the Passover attack. For those who may not know, Passover is a Jewish holiday commemorating

the Exodus and freedom of the Israelites from ancient Egypt. For the Jews, and even many Christians, this is a big holiday.

It would be foolish to assume that the most recent act of mid-east terror had nothing to do with the timing of the Jewish holiday. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder why Muslims insist that the rest of world respect the principles of their faith, and yet they are not obliged to return the favor?

To me, this can only mean one of two things: Either radical Islam has very poor public relations skills or it truly does not care about the sanctity of any other religion or ideal. My money is on the latter. I think Islamic terrorists (two words keenly chosen to in conjunction with each other here) have executed their message perfectly well thus far.

In tit-for-tat logic then, this begs the question, “Why should the rest of the world show the respect for Mohammed and Islam that Muslims demand when Muslims have no intention of doing the same?”

That question may provoke criticism from my not-so-friends on the left. “Why have I associated all Muslims with a single radical group?” They will demand. Well, I don’t ever recall hearing the greater Muslim community condemn this or any other acts of Islamic terrorism (there’s those words again).

If Muslims continue to act in such a manner, they will find themselves increasingly on the fray of the public defense – even from those who have championed their religion up to this point (President Bush and Comedy Central included). The message ought to be clear to them, abide by the rules of a civil society or forever face defamation and bombings. That’s pretty blunt, but it’s the politically incorrect truth.

And of course, the reigning question here, “Is Islam truly a religion of peace?”

In answer to that, I urge my readers to refresh themselves with the above paragraphs and then flip through the news headlines of the day…or any day.

Spike's Bottom Story of the Day

I'll gladly borrow from WSJ's Best of the Web to publish my own 'Bottom Story of the Day' This headline is worth it:

Ben Affleck: Bush Can Be Hung for 'Leaks' in Plamegate

Why do liberals protect duplicate voter registrations?

A common voice of disdain for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s recommended policy to require an update (see here) of all Washington’s voter registrations is that the objective is to “get a Republican majority by default.”

This objection to the policy I have seen numerous times in editorials, letters to the editor and liberal blogs.

Do liberal-minded opponents then concede that if it weren’t for all of the bad registrations in the statewide voter database their Democratic party would not fair too well in elections?

Liberals and conservatives alike surely agree that the database is full of illegitimate registrations (the dead, duplicate and dubious registrations).

So, is this the general consensus amongst Democrats? My own understanding of this argument is left wanting.

If there are liberal readers perusing this conservative blog (for kicks, we’ll say) then refute this by all means.

TIME: ‘Sticking to his guns’

The cover of the February 27 TIME magazine featured Vice President Dick Cheney, questioning his influence over presidential policy in the Bush White House. Here’s what the teaser line said:

From the Iraq war to torture to energy policy, DICK CHENEY stubbornly clings to what he believes. But how much does he still have the President’s ear?

Wow. I wish those darned elected officials would quit clinging to their beliefs! Don’t they know they are corrupting this country? The further atrocity here is that Cheney does so “stubbornly”.

I read this while in the bathroom and so perhaps I am overly philosophical on the subject but, doesn’t society traditionally mark one who sticks to their beliefs, even when the going gets tough, as virtuous? Or I suppose it is only noble to do so when ones beliefs coincide with your own?

This is just one of many, many examples that show how editorialized the news media really is. In fact, most news stories as they appear in TIME and NEWSWEEK are editorialized. There is an inherent bias that exists.

I don’t have a problem with full magazines devoted to opinions and commentary. After all, I don’t think I have ever written an unbiased piece on political subjects either. The difference is that TIME and NEWSWEEK claim to do so under the guise of compelling news. Yet, this is not compelling news at all. And TIME magazine is geared toward the neophyte political reader who is easily influence by mass media reporting. To me, this is a disgusting show of media ethics, purveyed in a subtle form.
When did this become okay?

More on election reform

An editorial in the Seattle PI today is headlined, “King County Elections: Coming up short.” This headline should come as no surprise to anyone…except election officials.

It is interesting that while the public and the media understand that elections in this state are a mess, political figures have yet to grasp that.

Last month in a press conference, Ron Sims said, “We don't need an overhaul. They (elections officials) have really pulled their act together.”

Was he kidding?! I am afraid not. And sadly this is the tenor for many of those who are supposed to be “reformers.” Sam Reed, we mean you.

Here’s another example, the Seattle Times today also ran an editorial titled, “Restore faith in county elections.” The press gets it. They understand there is a problem.

These types of news stories and editorials have not stopped running since the 2004 election. Every week—and often every day—there is another article on this issue.

There is a tendency for conservatives to take opposition to the Washington state press corps. After all, this state is a blue, blue state dominated by the liberal metropolitan Puget Sound. The media here can be just as blue. But the media is not the opposition. They have done their job. They have reported every election nuance with utter scrutiny. Sometimes it is favorable, and sometimes not, but they have shown willingness to get to the bottom of the issue.

Many liberal blogs have offered sharp criticism of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s proposed initiative to require all voters to update their registrations. Some of that has filtered into editorial boards across the state.

One major complaint is that this would cost too much to “re-register” all voters. I fret at the irony of this objection. Liberals are too eager to spend every drop of state revenue—and then some, except when it comes to elections. (Is a Beer Commission more worthy of tax dollars than a clean voter roll? I digress.)

It is truly time for real election reform to happen. The real opposition is elected officials who don’t want to confess their sins that the election system is not fixed. Why should they? Their political careers rest on this issue.

There are plenty of great ideas out there. EFF’s Voter Integrity Project is at the forefront of most of them. I encourage you to read their proposals, they are worthy.

The media is one of the public’s greatest assets in this issue. There have been a lot of dumb statements (I reference Sims’ above quote), and the media has caught most of them.

The citizen is the greater asset, though. It is he who will ultimately decide the fate of our elections system, whether it be a vote on an initiative or a vote for a candidate. But it is the job of the citizen to pay attention to what the media is reporting. Our elections system is not fixed, and previous efforts for “reform” are bunk.

Cost should be a secondary evaluation to need. Coming from a true conservative, that should say a lot about the state of our elections.

We need real election reform now.

For solutions to our election woes, visit the links below:
::Balloting rolls will be wrong until every voter in state registers again
::Washington state’s new voter database is flawed
::New state voter database still has major problems

::Cole joins Respectfully Republican as contributor

You can now catch my posts on the blog, Respectfully Republican. I will be contributing exclusives there periodically and will cross-blog my posts from here.

Respectfully Republican has traditionally been a College Republican blog maintained by the Pacific Lutheran University CRs. It recently underwent a facelift and is now branded as a Young Republican blog, with new contributors and a wider range of issue content.

I am excited to join them as a contributor and I encourage my readers to also wander over there for more great commentary on an astute blend of state and national issues.

See you over there!

AFL-CIO rejects guest worker program

Reuters reports that the AFL-CIO rejects the US guest worker program. This is none too surprising; though I am a little shocked that it took them so long to decide this...aren’t they two years late on this?

Actually, this union policy makes sense. If immigrant workers are allowed in the country under this program, they can’t really join unions and pay dues. This means there are jobs being filled that the AFL-CIO (the largest worker union in the nation, they like to brag) can’t profiteer from.

After all, a union is a business, and what a better way to profit in capitalism than to snuff out any competition? I just wonder if it has occurred to the unions that perhaps the guest worker program is their own doing. Maybe if the union wage demands on corporations weren’t so high, maybe some companies could offer jobs to U.S. residents only and actually afford to pay them.

Sigh. I guess business is business.

Legislative Gag Order

The Democrat controlled legislature does not like limits. It doesn’t care for the vox populi or the mandates imposed on them by citizens. This session, Democrats in the legislature have tried their best to stifle opposition to their rash agenda. No, I am not talking about their heinous success in censoring Republicans from criticizing their budget, though that counts, too. I mean that they have taken several disgraceful actions toward limiting the right of the people to participate in democracy.

Here’s what’s gone down this session. This shouldn’t make Joe Citizen happy.

If you hate opposition, eliminate it
Early in the session Senator Ken Jacobson, a longtime Democrat legislator from Seattle proposed SJR 8201 to eliminate our power of initiative and referendum. Jacobson said that initiatives undermine America’s republican form of government. Though Jacobson seems to have forgotten that a republican government means you actually represent citizens of the state. Should the legislature take this into account, perhaps there wouldn’t be so many initiatives.

If you can’t eliminate initiatives, the stick an e-clause on it
SJR 8201 quickly failed in committee, mostly due to political posturing. So, the Dems reverted back to last year’s session trend, the emergency clause.

This clause is intended to be used only when the health or safety of state citizens is at risk. Most new laws do not take effect until 90 days after the legislative session adjourns. This allows citizens time to gather signatures to file a referendum (remember, one of those things Jacobson hates). Our state democracy is designed so that citizens ultimately have the final say on whether or not a measure becomes law. When an emergency clause is enacted on a bill, the right to referendum is denied.

This year, the abuse of the emergency clause has again been rampant. When Rep. Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland) introduced legislation to prevent the abuse of the emergency clause, Speaker Frank Chopp quickly killed it. In return, he asked members to “govern themselves” when using it. This reeks of dirty politics. The Democrats don’t want to eliminate the emergency clause; it’s their bread and butter for ensuring that their arrogance of power is not overturned by the people they are supposed to represent.

The slow death of I-601
In order to make legal their “tax-and-spend” “shell game” (I use these words copiously here since Republicans in the House have been censored), Democrats have to first further gut I-601. SB 6896 and PSHB 2552 would accomplish this. These two bills are supposed to appropriate money into savings accounts. Under the guise of fiscal foresight though, these bills are deceiving. The intent of them is not to truly save money, but to artificially inflate the 601 spending limit. What’s worse, the emergency clause again makes an encore appearance on both these bills. I am sniffing and sniffing but still don’t smell any smoke! Where’s the emergency?

Senator Joe Zarelli (R-Ridgefield) is leading the charge against these two bills by proposing a series of amendments to eliminate the emergency clause, changes the bill titles to show true effect, and prevents I-601 from being gutted. A vote in the Senate is due any day now.


I am beginning to think that when Tim Eyman showed up to a Senate hearing in January wearing handcuffs and duct tape over his mouth was more than just a political stunt. It now seems to be a valid analogy of what’s going on in Olympia.

Illegal initiative argument refuted

While perusing the liberal blogs the other day for amusement, I came across several disturbing posts. Not that their content was of any great controversy or that the ideas were x-rated, but because I have become more and more amazed at the lack of rational thought displayed in most liberal commentary.

Just this week, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation held a press conference on the job performance of Secretary of State Sam Reed, election reform and the prospect of a new initiative to be run by EFF’s c(4) spin-off, Grassroots Washington.

It is true; Grassroots Washington will likely run an initiative this year that would demand a clean voter roll. While the language of the initiative is still being worked out, the initiative would require all voters to update their registrations in order to vote a regular ballot in the next general election. Anyone who does not update their registration will still be able to cast a provisional ballot that will not be counted until the individual’s voter registration is updated.

The statewide voter database introduced by Reed last month can only maintain a clean voter roll, it cannot create one. With all of the erroneous registrations in the current database, there is little hope that it will single-handedly restore voter trust.

Thus, the best way to have a clean voter roll is to suspend all active registrations and allow legal, valid voters to update their registration to prevent further disenfranchisement by Reed, the Democrats and those who cast illegal ballots.

One blog in particular (found here) has made an especially crude argument. This blogger insists that the initiative to be filed by EFF/GW is illegal…and they know it. Gasp! The conspiracy! The deception! The mayhem! Please.

The blogger founds this argument based on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This act essentially states that no voter may be purged from the system once he or she is in it. The exceptions would be in the case of death or by the registrant himself.

Therefore, this blogger concludes, EFF/GW is knowingly drafting an illegal initiative.

This argument is mortally flawed. If the EFF/GW initiative would actually say that all voters will be removed and anyone who wishes to vote is forced to reregister then yes, it would be illegal. But the blogger is negligent in his argument. He did not bother to closely examine what EFF/GW is proposing.

They do not say that all voters will be purged from the voter database. Current registrations will only be suspended and they can still vote. So no law will be violated and no statute will be changed.

This initiative will be an important one to pass in November. It is obvious that our elected leaders will not pursue meaningful election reform. This initiative will restore trust in Washington’s electoral system because it will prevent double voters, duplicate registrations, deceased voters and non citizen voters.

This will be the first of many steps to real election reform.

One last thing, the blogger states:
“I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.”

This is laughable. Not only is it sophomoric to claim you have so many arguments against something but you won’t waste the time listing them, it is weak. If you are not going to actually articulate your argument, then don’t make the claim. It’s generic, cliché and nobody buys it. The rest of us learned that in grade school.

Secondly, this blogger suggest that EFF needs this initiative to pass so that the Republicans can win. Ha! So is he admitting that the Democrats need illegal votes to keep winning in Washington? Looks like it.

Censorship anyone?

Just when you think House Democrats could not be more ludicrous in their majority rule, they have taken their arrogance of power to a new level.

Now House Republicans are banned from using certain phrases when talking about the Democrat supplemental budget, including “tax and spend” and “shell game.”

Heaven forbid anyone oppose them openly.

This reminds me of, say….totalitarianism. I seem to remember Stalin and Saddam doing the same thing. That's curious.

It's also good to note here that both the Chief Clerk, Rich Nafziger, and House Counsel, Tim Sekarek, are "non-partisan" staff. Humph, right.

My favorite quote in the article? Nafziger says, “You can’t use taxpayers’ dollars to sling mud.”

So, what is the essence politics again? I have forgotten.

THE OLYMPIAN
Move over, George Carlin.

House Republicans say there are “seven dirty words” you can never say when talking about the Democrats’ budget this year in Olympia.

Among the forbidden phrases: “Shell game.” “Lack of honesty with taxpayers.” “Tax-and-spend liberal.” “It’s not truthful to say this money is being put into reserve.”

Carlin wasn’t joking about the words not allowed on TV. And it appears the GOP isn’t joking, either.

Republican news releases using the forbidden phrases were removed from Web sites and edited this week by order of the House Chief Clerk’s Office and its legal counsel.

The reason: The words impugned the motives of the other party’s members at taxpayer expense, House Chief Clerk Rich Nafziger said Thursday. “You can’t use taxpayers’ dollars to sling mud.”

read the full article

How NOT to decline a job offer -- a true email

This is awesomely bad. The whole thing speaks for itself, so my own commentary is unnecessary.

Smart, Sassy and Unemployed

Chalk it up to "being quite full of oneself," but a would-be lawyerette lets fly and the poo-poo hits the Boston legal community fan.

Angry would-be employer sends young lawyer's email far and wide:

Two weeks ago, newly minted young Boston attorney Dianna Abdala e-mailed a prospective employer, William Korman. "The pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living," she wrote, turning down his job offer.

Korman was not happy. . . .

An ordinary office spat? Nope. Korman forwarded the exchange to a friend … and it spread throughout the Boston legal community -- and then to the Boston Globe, to the International Herald Tribune, to ABC News' "Nightline."

It was the "bla bla bla" heard round the world -- making Abdala the most famous, perhaps notorious, 24-year-old lawyer in America.

And here's the email exhange:

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:23 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Thank you

Dear Attorney Korman,

At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I sow.

Thank you for the interviews.

Dianna L. Abdala, Esq.


-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Korman
To: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Dianna --
Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 PM voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional. Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering stationary and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Will Korman

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:01 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Re: Thank you

A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so.

Again, thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Korman
To: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?


-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
To: William A. Korman
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you

bla bla bla

Senate Supplemental Breaks the Bank

Today the senate passed its version of the supplemental budget. This budget takes a $1.4 billion surplus and turns it into a spending increase by more than 17 percent since the 2003-05 biennium.

This supplemental budget also spends $120 million more than the projected supplemental budget forecast and is in complete disregard for the I-601 spending limit.

The legislature has forgotten that the purpose of the supplemental budget. It should be reserved for unforeseen emergency spending. Ultimately, it should be revenue neutral if the state is following the Priorities of Government budget process since any new priorities would be offset by reductions in areas of lower priority. It's not intended to fund pork projects.

One of the more disappointing votes comes from Sen. Don Benton (R-Vancouver). Benton got a lot of pet projects for his district. Such pork likely influenced his liberal vote. Boo-hiss. For such a self-proclaimed truly-principled Republican, this is poor statesmanship. Instead of maintaining a conservative composure, Benton gave into the lust of political posture. I expect more from such a prominent member of the Senate Republican Caucus.

With Kastama and Sheldon’s nay votes, had Benton and Roach voted nay, the Senate’s version would have been defeated. I am beginning to wonder if Republicans are now just content with the minority role and have lost the drive to fight for it.

Do Washington Republican’s even know what they stand for?

Hey everyone, drinks are on Benton and Roach tonight--They think money is free!

.:::::.

ESSB 6386

Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage

2/17/2006

Yeas: 26 Nays: 19 Absent: 0 Excused: 4

Voting Yea: Senators Benton, Berkey, Brown, Doumit, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Pridemore, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Shin, Spanel, Thibaudeau, and Weinstein.

Voting Nay: Senators Benson, Brandland, Carrell, Delvin, Esser, Hewitt, Honeyford, Johnson, Kastama, Morton, Mulliken, Parlette, Pflug, Schmidt, Schoesler, Sheldon, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli.

Absent:
Excused: Senators Deccio, Finkbeiner, McCaslin, and Oke.

Guest Opinion: Balloting rolls will be wrong until every voter in state registers again

Bellingham Herald print edition
By Matthew Cole, Guest Columnist
February 16, 2006

Have you ever experienced déjà vu?

It was February 2, 2005, when Secretary of State Sam Reed was touting his new election reform package, claiming, “The lessons learned from [the Governor’s race] will make our state's election system even stronger.”

Flash-forward to today: Reed is promising again to solve Washington’s election woes—this time with the release of his new statewide voter database.

Many election reformers were initially optimistic that this new database would clarify some of the confusion surrounding registered voters in the state. After all, Reed has been billing it as such for years now. Sadly, this is not the case.

A database can only be as good as the data it contains. The new voter database grandfathers in scores of deceased, duplicate and non-citizen voters. A quick query revealed that many birthdates are over a century old, many voters have two genders, and many more have multiple active registrations.

Reed acknowledged that the new voter database found at least 12,000 deceased persons registered to vote and as many as 36,000 voters registered twice—this is before any check for felons. The database does not even attempt to check for citizenship.

Separate checks by various watchdog groups showed that there are scores of registrations with obvious errors. Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com found 1,353 pairs of duplicate registrations where both entries match on first name, last name, birth date and exact address. Eighty-two percent of these names are in King County alone!

Reed maintains that these duplicate registered voters “are not casting two ballots.” Yet he admits that the vast majority of these cases have yet to be fully investigated. Worst of all, county auditors are already relying on the new voter database for their elections.

As bad as the situation seems, there is a solution. To restore credibility in our state elections system, all Washington voters must re-register, thus allowing the database to work off a clean voter roll. Voters should be required to provide proof of citizenship and show a photo ID in order to activate their registration.

Reed must also be transparent about the problems with the database and act quickly to identify illegal voters. As Washington’s chief elections officer, he is obliged to assist the counties in combating elections crime. Additionally, we should strengthen a county auditors’ duty to verify information on registration forms.

As it stands, the current statewide voter database provides no refuge to those seeking better election practices in Washington. In fact, the problem is made worse by creating a false impression that our elections system is fixed.

With the 2006 midterm elections looming, voter data must be correct. This can only be accomplished through re-registering all voters. Enacting this vital reform is a necessary step toward restoring integrity to Washington’s elections and preventing another Gregoire-Rossi déjà vu.

Guest opinion: New state voter database still has major problems

Lynden Tribune print edition
By Matthew Cole, Special to the Tribune
February 15, 2006

In classic political fashion, Secretary of State Same Reed spun the arrival of Washington’s version of the statewide voter database as “a breakthrough for the state” in election reform. Don’t do the happy dance just yet.

While Reed’s office claims that the new database is one of the most significant election reforms in recent history, for that claim to have value, the information within the database must be accurate and true. However, the new database grandfathers in scores of deceased, duplicate and non-citizen voters. A quick query revealed that many birthdates are over a century old, many voters have two genders, and many more have multiple active registrations.

If corrected, Reed’s database could be a useful tool for maintaining a clean voter roll, but it cannot create one. In its present form it is useless. An initial scan of the database found serious errors in over 15 percent of the 3.5 million voter registrations. If I do my math correctly, that’s around 525,000 registrations blundered. While it is unclear how long any of these registration have possessed such serious errors, let’s keep in mind that the 2004 governor’s race was decided by only 129 votes. Those numbers don’t do much to console those of us who are deeply concerned about Washington’s electoral integrity.

Furthermore, 458,000 voters statewide are listed in the wrong state legislative district—53,000 of these registrations have no precinct or district information at all! Beyond the 32,000 duplicate voters Reed acknowledges finding, researchers at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation found 11,715 more by checking for people with the same birthdate and identical addresses. Many of these duplicate voters have slightly different names due to either fraud or clerical error.

And that’s not all, scores more have incorrect gender listed, there are hundreds of under-age registrations and thousands more registered deceased people, and non-citizen voters.

Bad registrations aren’t the only problem with the voter database. In the aftermath of the messy 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which required all states to create a statewide voter registration database by January 1, 2006. While Reed claims that this database has been in the works years before HAVA, the official database was not released to the public until January 31, 2006, nearly a month after the deadline.

With the current set-up of the database, non-citizens, federal felons and many duplicate registrations will never be found. As it stands, the statewide voter database is hardly the “breakthrough” that it has been hyped to be.

This database has enormous potential for becoming an effective tool in Washington’s elections; but a database is only as good as the data it contains. For the new voter database, that means changing the way elections officials gather the information.

To restore credibility in our state elections system, Reed should place all voters on an inactive status and require them to update their registrations. Voters should be required to provide proof of citizenship and show a photo ID in order to activate their registration. Anyone failing to do so would be able to vote a provisional ballot.

Additionally, we should clarify and strengthen a county auditor’s duty to verify information on a registration form.

Only by conducting a 100 percent new registration that requires voters to register in their legal name, provide proof of citizenship and identification will we be able to trust the voter database.

Right now, the current statewide voter database provides no refuge to those seeking better election practices in Washington. With the 2006 midterms looming, voter data must be correct. Requiring all voters to reactivate their registrations is one of the best ways to make the database accurate. It is a necessary step for restoring integrity to Washington’s elections.

Overhaul Sims

This news brief is in today’s USA Today:

Seattle - King County Executive Ron Sims says the elections department has made so much improvement that it no longer needs an overhaul by an outside turnaround team. The team was hired on the recommendation of a task force looking into problems exposed in the close 2004 race for governor.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/wamain.htm

Ron Sims must be delusional. The very reason that King County will never have substantial elections reform and clean voter rolls is because it is continually in denial over its failed elections infrastructure.

Interesting that Sims claims no overhaul is needed and yet, intial surveys of the new statewide voter database reveals that 1,353 pairs of duplicate registrations were found where both entries match on first name, last name, birth date and exact address. Eighty-two percent of these names are in King County alone!

Sims is right, the elections department doesn’t need an overhaul. Sims himself needs to be overhauled. I’m calling Chip Foose.

See this post for my analysis of how to fix our voter database.

Guest Opinion: Washington state’s new voter database is flawed

Walla Walla Union Bulletin print edition
By Matthew Cole, Special to the U-B
February 9, 2006

The advent of the new statewide voter database has brought with it the assurance from Secretary of State Sam Reed that all of our election woes will soon be remedied. However, a database can only be as good as the data it contains.

In the aftermath of the messy 2000 presidential election, the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required all states to create a statewide voter registration database by January 1, 2006. Last week, the Secretary of State’s office released to the public the new database that contains data on nearly 3.4 million voters.

The new database grandfathers in scores of deceased, duplicate and non-citizen voters. A quick query revealed that many birthdates are over a century old, many voters have two genders, and many more have multiple active registrations.

Reed acknowledged that the new voter database found at least 5,224 deceased registered to vote in Washington and an additional 3,000 voters registered twice—this is before any check for felons and with no plan to check for citizenship. 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.

Similar checks by various watchdog groups showed that there are scores of registrations with obvious errors. Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com found 1,353 pairs of duplicate registrations, where both members match on first name, last name, birth date and exact address.

What’s more startling, Sharkansky notes, is that 82 percent of these names are in King County alone. And yet, Reed stated unconditionally that these duplicate registered voters “are not casting two ballots.”

Not so fast. Have we already forgotten the number of illegal votes identified in the 2004 election? If I recall, it didn’t exactly go off without a hitch.

Another query found an additional 156 pairs of duplicates. Of those 156 pairs, one was born in 1900, five voted in their last election in 1800; seventy-six voted in their last election in 1900, seven have two genders; and seventy-six have two active registrations. The remaining pairs have one or both registrations flagged as inactive.

All of this highlights an even larger dilemma. Reed is in violation of HAVA. While he contends that the database is a work in progress, it is contrary to the federal statute. HAVA mandated that the new database be fully current and accurate. Reed stated, “We’ve got more work ahead. And we’re not satisfied yet.” He is behind the game by a full month. The voter database was not released to the public until February 1. HAVA required that all statewide databases be fully current and accurate by the first of the year.

In a state that now boasts the closest and most controversial gubernatorial election in U.S. history, one might think Reed would have been more pressed than his national counterparts to get an accurate database in play on time. What Washington got instead was a rough draft. Reed’s database was widely distributed without checking for felons, non-citizens, deaths or even residency. This list does nothing to improve the process and now Washington is noncompliant with federal regulations.

With all the ballyhoo in the new database, one wonders if Washington will ever restore integrity to its electoral process.

There is a solution: To restore credibility in our state elections system, we should place all voters on an inactive status and require them to update their registrations. Voters should be required to provide proof of citizenship and show a photo ID in order to activate their registration. Anyone failing to do so would be able to vote a provisional ballot.

We also need to strengthen current voter ID laws and require a valid identification to be shown when voting. Additionally, we should clarify and strengthen a county auditor’s duty to verify information on a registration form.

Only by conducting a 100 percent new registration that requires voters to register in their legal name, provide proof of citizenship and identification will we be able to trust the voter database.

As it stands, the current statewide voter database provides no refuge to those seeking better election practices in Washington. With the 2006 midterms looming, voter data must be correct. Requiring all voters to reactivate their registrations is one of the best ways to make the database accurate. It is a necessary step for restoring integrity to Washington’s elections.

Statewide voter database is junk

The advent of the new statewide voter database has brought with it the assurance from Secretary of State Sam Reed that all of our election woes will soon be remedied. However, a database can only be as good as the data it contains.

In the aftermath of the messy 2000 presidential election, the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required all states to create a statewide voter registration database by January 1, 2006. Last week, the Secretary of State’s office released to the public the new database that contains data on nearly 3.4 million voters.

The new database grandfathers in scores of deceased, duplicate and non-citizen voters. A quick query revealed that many birthdates are over a century old, many voters have two genders, and many more have multiple active registrations.

Reed acknowledged that the new voter database found at least 5,224 deceased registered to vote in Washington and an additional 3,000 voters registered twice—this is before any check for felons and with no plan to check for citizenship. 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.

Similar checks by various watchdog groups showed that there are scores of registrations with obvious errors. Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com found 1,353 pairs of duplicate registrations, where both members match on first name, last name, birth date and exact address.

What’s more startling, Sharkansky notes, is that 82 percent of these names are in King County alone. And yet, Reed stated unconditionally that these duplicate registered voters “are not casting two ballots.”

Not so fast. Have we already forgotten the number of illegal votes identified in the 2004 election? If I recall, it didn’t exactly go off without a hitch.

Another query found an additional 156 pairs of duplicates. Of those 156 pairs, one was born in 1900, five voted in their last election in 1800; seventy-six voted in their last election in 1900, seven have two genders; and seventy-six have two active registrations. The remaining pairs have one or both registrations flagged as inactive.

All of this highlights an even larger dilemma. Reed is in violation of HAVA. While he contends that the database is a work in progress, it is contrary to the federal statute. HAVA mandated that the new database be fully current and accurate. Reed stated, “We’ve got more work ahead. And we’re not satisfied yet.” He is behind the game by a full month. The voter database was not released to the public until February 1. HAVA required that all statewide databases be fully current and accurate by the first of the year.

In a state that now boasts the closest and most controversial gubernatorial election in U.S. history, one might think Reed would have been more pressed than his national counterparts to get an accurate database in play on time. What Washington got instead was a rough draft. Reed’s database was widely distributed without checking for felons, non-citizens, deaths or even residency. This list does nothing to improve the process and now Washington is noncompliant with federal regulations.

With all the ballyhoo in the new database, one wonders if Washington will ever restore integrity to its electoral process.

There is a solution: To restore credibility in our state elections system, we should place all voters on an inactive status and require them to update their registrations. Voters should be required to provide proof of citizenship and show a photo ID in order to activate their registration. Anyone failing to do so would be able to vote a provisional ballot.

We also need to strengthen current voter ID laws and require a valid identification to be shown when voting. Additionally, we should clarify and strengthen a county auditor’s duty to verify information on a registration form.

Only by conducting a 100 percent new registration that requires voters to register in their legal name, provide proof of citizenship and identification will we be able to trust the voter database.

As it stands, the current statewide voter database provides no refuge to those seeking better election practices in Washington. With the 2006 midterms looming, voter data must be correct. Requiring all voters to reactivate their registrations is one of the best ways to make the database accurate. It is a necessary step for restoring integrity to Washington’s elections.

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