| Today's dumb e-mail from an elected official is from Sen. Dan Swecker (R-Rochester). A constituent e-mailed Sen. Swecker to ask him to explain his YEA vote on the deranged "election reform" bill SB 6362. Sen. Swecker's dumb reply follows: |
There was no testimony against the bill in committee. All of the republican members of the committee voted yes. The Ranking Republican Member of the Committee, Sen. Pam Roach, said it was a needed reform. It was supported in testimony by the Republican Sec of State, Sam Reed, and several county auditors. I do not serve on the committee so I must rely on these other folks for their best judgement and recommendations.In other words, this non-response which doesn't include a single good word about the actual bill, suggests that Sen. Swecker voted for the bill without taking the time to understand what it actually did. And Swecker wasn't alone. One of his Republican Senate colleagues confided in me that their caucus dropped the ball on this one. But now that they understand the bill and its perverse consequences, most of them would oppose it if it comes back from the House unless it's been drastically fixed. So kudos again, to Senators Finkbeiner, Johnson, Morton, Stevens, and Zarelli for actually reading the bill and voting NAY. And may those who voted YEA be more discerning on the next one.
There are some important lessons here --
1) The Democrats hardly ever sponsor "election reform" legislation that doesn't make it easier to get away with vote fraud. Whenever the Democrats put forth such legislation, assume it is crap, unless you are very certain that it isn't.
2) I've realized, sadly, that The Secretary of State and the county auditors are among the least competent, least trustworthy and most prone to ass-covering and wagon-circling of any bureaucrats I've had the misfortune of dealing with. When the Secretary of State and the county auditors support any piece of legislation, assume it is crap, unless you are very certain that it isn't.
3) The legislators vote on hundreds of bills every session. We expect them to read and weigh these bills carefully, but this is hardly an isolated incident. So much for the liberals' fantasies about representative democracy. We as constitutents need to realize that our part-time legislators have more bills to wade through than they can adequately process. So they frequently vote from snap judgments on the basis of limited information and trust recommendations, often from people we disagree with. It's up to us to be proactive, express our opinions and inform our legislators about the bills that are before them. Or somebody else will.
SB 6362 is now working its way through the House. Rep. Toby Nixon is drafting some constructive amendments. Depending on what passes out of committee, this bill might be worth calling your legislators about, either for or against.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2006 12:08 AM | Email ThisIt really doesn't matter what the committee says if it's not inline with the sentiments of the constituents. I'm guessing there are a few in Rochester who don't like SB 6362. Speak up.
The plea to ignorance is pathetic. Senator Swecker, if you don't know what you are voting on, then please resign your seat to someone who is willing to do their homework.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2006 01:03 AMPosted by: rossi too on February 22, 2006 02:27 AM
"Oh Dean-Dean, your soooooo smart"!
"I'm doing whatever Dean says"
Between Logan and "Sideshow Bob" Terwilliger, they have the others completely in a vegetative state...mesmorized with their expertise.
As we've learned, Election Law is very complex. These County Auditors have many other responsibilities too. They welcome someone like Logan to tell them what to do and what to support.
Is it merely a coincidence that KING is the only County with an appointed Election Director.
Me thinks not.
Logan is the Pied Piper of Mediocrity and Corruption!
The others are decent people, easily mislead.
Never forget that....they have repeatedly circled the wagons for Logan, as has Reed.
Nice little club, huh? Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 22, 2006 06:34 AM
So why Senator Swecker are we supporting Republicans in this legislature???? HUH?
Posted by: GS on February 22, 2006 07:43 AMI am surprised he said that much.
He usually lets his wife do his fighting. Posted by: Jim L on February 22, 2006 08:00 AM
So, let me throw out a challenge. Have any of you followed a bill through the legislature? Have any of you testified? If you have, you know how tough it is.
Just sitting there in the chambers and listening to testimony over whether there should be an 'a' or 'the' is pretty boring. And, to read one of these bills is another story.
And then, once the bill gets passed, the attorneys get it and what the bill was agreed upon is not the way the attorneys are interpreting it.
So, with Stefan's caveat of the error made by those of us that want election reform, what is the politician to do except what he did?
I would be more sympathetic to the 'stupid e-mail' idea that the guy were a dolt if someone said he had informed Swecker about the ramifications of the bill before he voted. Did he talk to his caucus? Did Finkbeiner, et al, notify the legislators before the bill that it is not a good bill? If the answer were 'no' to all of the above, then I don't think it was a dumb e-mail.
Government means citizens must participate. If you didn't voice your concerns, the finger is back at ya.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2006 08:03 AMBut, it appears that is not the case with many legislators. So, we have to take the fight to them.
Bull on the RINO callout, unless you can prove that he knew of the concerns beforehand. And in "prove" I just mean blogosphere "proof" and not legal proof.
There are just too many bills out there that can't be read. And don't forget that each of these bills have about 20 amendments. There is just no way to ketchup.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2006 09:54 AMAgreed.
However, our most basic act of participation is HIRING THE LEGISLATOR with our vote and then actually EXPECTING HIM TO DO THE JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS HIRED: READING, UNDERSTANDING, THEN ACTING UPON THE LEGISLATION FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS BEST INTERESTS.
'I didn't know' and 'Everyone else did it this way' just ain't gonna cut it - not in the workplace and certainly not from a guy being paid with our tax dollars.
I e-mailed mine, too, citing the example if she were to learn that someone whom she did not know was registered to vote at her {the representtive's} home address, and she had no way to challenge that registration, what would her reaction be? No reply, and she voted for the bill. Posted by: katomar on February 22, 2006 10:25 AM
We are brothers from another mother... but is it not the job of our elected officials to find out what they are putting their name to. That is why they make the big bucks...if they don't like it get out of the kitchen...not be some kool-aide drinking apostle!!!
We are caught up in an “R” vs. “D” thing...and that is not what we should be doing. What ever happened to what is the right thing for Washington... that is what should matter!!!
If we did, we would elect librarians or bookworms. We do elect a lot of attorneys, but they have a lot of free time and can break away for several months from their job and aren't missed.
Have you ever read one of the bills? Just anyone will do. It is worse than reading a technical magazine or research report.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2006 01:45 PMI have been involved in writing bills since 1976...and you are right no one reads them they just trade favors with each other. You vote for mine and I'll vote for yours!!!
Posted by: tacoma phlash on February 22, 2006 03:09 PMThey fit the extreme ideal of the right wing...which means the more voters know about them, the better.
Posted by: The Real Lesson on February 23, 2006 08:50 AM