2012-02-10T23:59:16Z http://blog.jamessrussell.com/comments/atom.aspx Quick Blogcast tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-25:15613826 Pam 2012-01-26T02:26:32Z 2012-01-26T02:26:32Z We've had our 9 month old puppy for almost 4 months, and I can't even remember life before him. He is pure joy and happiness, even at 5:30 am when we go for a walk in a 34 degree down pour! tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-16:15531800 Jim Russell 2012-01-16T16:19:05Z 2012-01-16T16:19:05Z My article should have started with the words, "Good Government is inevitably part of the solution." I haven't figured out a way to enforce the law of no primaries until their work is done. Maybe we should legalize they must finish their top promise they make before the start of the current session of Congress before primaries can begin. tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-16:15531798 Wen 2012-01-16T16:16:49Z 2012-01-16T16:16:49Z "Government" as represented by elected officials will remain the problem until voters come to realize that it is all about tenure in office. As soon as we have term limits, limited spending for elections….and I love your idea of no primaries until the work is done… "government" will remain the problem. tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-16:15531791 Wen 2012-01-16T16:13:49Z 2012-01-16T16:13:49Z "Government" as represented by elected officials will remain the problem until voters come to realize that it is all about tenure in office. As soon as we have term limits, limited spending for elections….and I love your idea of no primaries until the work is done… "government" will remain the problem. tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-15:15507757 Gary 2012-01-15T11:14:18Z 2012-01-15T11:14:18Z Yes, Jim, but Government is not the solution to all of our problems. History proves that. Gary tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-15:15507738 Jim Russell 2012-01-15T11:08:40Z 2012-01-15T11:08:40Z Thanks for correcting my term on PCOs. Jim Hunter ribbed me for confusing PCOs with 3-CPO from Star Wars, which he thought was a fitting description of our national politics right now. <br />I also understand the PCOs can be appointed to fill vacancies for elected posts, which makes their election process even more troubling. Jim Russell tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-15:15507729 Jim Hunter 2012-01-15T11:00:48Z 2012-01-15T11:00:48Z Actually, there are methods by which the state could comply. It's simply that the S of S does not like or agree with any of the suggested methods and is refusing to do anything other than his unilateral action. He can't be taking the "right action" by cancelling the PCO primary because by doing so he is not only ignoring, but violating long-standing and existing state law.<br /> <br />However, there is another meeting scheduled for this Monday in Olympia at which one hopes that some rational solution will be found. Even if that is to change existing law to revise publicly conducted and/or funded PCO elections, it will be better than the existing situation in which both state law and a federal court decision are being ignored.<br /> <br />Jim Hunter tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-14:15480914 Kitanne 2012-01-14T21:04:46Z 2012-01-14T21:04:46Z Jim, the correct term is "Precinct Committee Officer" or PCOs for short. Essentially, the are the grassroots of the party machine, not only leading precinct caucuses, but also responsible for knowing and working with the members of their party in their precinct, assisting with campaigns and fund raising (and most counties do a great deal more than rest stop coffees & cookies, btw), and representing their party in their precinct.<br /><br />Why should they be publicly elected? They shouldn't, unless the parties are willing to allow other party officials to be elected as well. THAT'S not going to happen, I can assure you. The election of PCOs costs taxpayers money, and the money is wasted, imho. If PCOs are important to the party structure, it should be the party's responsibility to recruit, train, and deploy them. The general public need not be involved; nor do they need to be paying for a process that is exclusively party related and has nothing to do with official duties which benefit the general taxpaying community. Parties are clubs, their organizational selections should be internal, not public.<br /><br />You are spot on about primaries. The caucuses are political charades at their worst. They exclude extremely important sectors of our community, the bedridden, homebound, military troops, people who have to work, people who have children, and 10% of the total electorate is generally all they reach. There is nothing democratic about them, there is no oversight to prevent insider party chicanery and downright cheating, and the votes that are placed at the caucus level can be changed at a whim, and have been so changed, as the caucus proceeds through the LD Caucuses and the State Convention Caucuses and Nomination process.<br /><br />This is an dated, undemocratic, unfair, discriminatory way to select a presidential candidate that only serves to further isolate and divide the party spectrum, leaving a huge number of people in the middle who would prefer a ballot procedure, which is safer, more honest, and well protected from party insider games and party cheating, generally speaking. tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-14:15479077 Jim Russell 2012-01-14T20:09:11Z 2012-01-14T20:09:11Z Jim, thanks for the clarifying email.<br /><br />Your points that state policy is established that PCOs be publicly elected at public expense is excellent, as is your point that the federal judge did not hold the state law unconstitutional, but rather the method using Washington's top-two primary party system. Consequently you object, and three political parties object, that the Secretary of State's unilateral action is a policy issue of the legislature and not the Secretary of State. <br /><br />However, the secretary of state does have to comply with the federal ruling, and as I understand, both he and the attorney general have not found a method by which they could be in compliance based on sessions with political party representatives and auditors. On that basis I believe he is taking the right action to cancel plans for PCO primary elections and save the state some money.<br /><br />Jim Russell tag:blog.jamessrussell.com,2012-01-14:15478558 Jim Hunter 2012-01-14T19:50:04Z 2012-01-14T19:50:04Z Regarding the current dispute over PCO elections, your observation that PCO's are not "public officials" is a good one and may be a compelling reason to change the current situation in some fashion. Arguably, PCO's can resemble political party officials more than typical public officials, despite serving several public purposes and functions in their local neighborhoods.<br /><br />However, that "policy question" is beside the point in the current debate over whether PCO's should be publicly elected at public expense. For now, state policy on the matter is well-established in state law, first adopted in the early-1900's. PCO's are clearly established under Washington law, as is their publicly funded and conducted election. <br /><br />The federal judge did not hold that law or those provisions unconstitutional. Rather, it was the current method by which PCO's are elected that was held to be unconstitutional - primarily because of the "top-two" effect and the ability of non-democrats to vote for democratic PCO candidates (and vice-versa with Republican PCO candidates). The distinction between what the judge held unconstitutional (authorizing statute vs. the current election process) is critical in this dispute. It is the election method which must be fixed based on the court's decision, not the law. Unless and until the underlying law is either changed or abolished, it still provides for publicly conducted and funded PCO elections as the public policy and statutory requirement in Washington. <br /><br />Secretary of State Sam Reed and county auditors around the state may wish to eliminate publicly conducted and/or funded elections of PCO's and there may be some compelling reason(s) to do so. But unilateral action on their part is not an option in this matter. Current state law must be changed in order to accomplish their purpose. And, that is the job of the state Legislature - not public officials like the Secretary of State or county auditors.<br /><br />The state's two major political parties have jointly and voluntarily offered up several ways to reduce the cost of publicly electing PCO's. These include putting only contested races on the ballot and eliminating write-ins. But eliminating such elections altogether without the law first being changed is, in my view, an arrogant and inappropriate way to address this important and long-established feature of our political process. <br /><br />Thanks for the opportunity to comment.<br /><br />Jim Hunter<br />Douglas County Republican Chairman<br />East Wenatchee