Visualize this: Ron Sims and a handful of people who desperately want I-25 to fail, high-fiving, drinking champagne and laughing so hard they're peeing their pants. Because I-25 (with 60% approval in opinion polls) has not only failed to qualify for the ballot, but failed in the funniest way imaginable. Not only did the campaign raise and spend over $120,000 without submitting enough signatures. Enough signatures were collected, but not submitted because the campaign was just short of what it needed to pay the signature firm for the remaining signatures.
Funny or sad, that's exactly where things stand. Enough signatures have been collected. All that's needed to qualify is the last few thousand dollars (ASAP!) to pay for the last signatures before June 20.
So if you want fair elections in King County, please donate to I-25 today. If you don't, it's YOU that the foes of honest elections will be laughing about, next Wednesday and every election day for years to come.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 14, 2007 12:29 PM | Email ThisAd hominem arguments show how weak your position is.
Posted by: Bruce on June 14, 2007 02:40 PM"Ad hominem arguments show how weak your position is."
Now I've read it all. A liberal whining about name calling and ad hominem attacks.
What a weenie.
There are two sides to every story, and the Other side FAILED, Flopped, screwed-up, and made a mockery of KCRE.
There is no attacking, it is simple truth. But you wouldn't understand that now would you.
You are here only to disagree....
Posted by: chris on June 14, 2007 04:05 PMAs Attorney General ,Governor Gregoire did not properly enforce the Washington State medical marijuana law.
As Attorney General, Governor Gregoire allowed 8 or more Washington State Counties,to enforce County laws over State laws.
County laws are subordinate to State General laws.
The Washington State attorney General failed to challenge a declaration of seperate sovereignty by Washington State Counties.
During Governor Gregoire's tenure as Washington State Attorney General,16 Counties of Washington State were able to enforce subordinate laws over State general laws,without challenging the enforcement of those subordinate laws.
Governor Gregoire, is guilty of Malfeasance in her duties as Washington State Attorney General,for failing to challenge 16 or more Counties enforcement of subordinate County laws over State General laws,and the subsequent declaration of separate Sovereignty by 16 or more counties of Washington State.
As Attorney General of Washington State ,Governor Gregoire was sworn in to uphold Washington State general laws.
As Attorney General of Washington State,Governor Gregoire has incorectly determined that Counties can interpret General laws as they deem fit,and allowed the alteration of General laws on a County by County basis.
This was malfeasance of the most basic sort.
As the Attorney General of Washington State,Governor Gregoire Failed to uphold the general laws of washington State,and not only failed to challange a declaration of separate sovereignty,but encouraged it by promoting,and distributing different altered versions of 69.51A
without any attempts to stop the practice of altering,and enforcing Washington State general laws.
Recall petition
As Attorney General ,Governor Gregoire did not properly enforce the Washington State medical marijuana law.
As Attorney General, Governor Gregoire allowed 16 or more Washington State Counties,to enforce County laws over State laws.
County laws are subordinate to State General laws.
The Washington State attorney General failed to challenge a declaration of seperate sovereignty by 16 Washington State Counties.
During Governor Gregoire's tenure as Washington State Attorney General,16 Counties of Washington State were able to enforce subordinate laws over State general laws,without any challeng to the enforcement of those subordinate laws,by the Washington State Attorney General.
Governor Gregoire, is guilty of Malfeasance in her duties as Washington State Attorney General,for failing to challenge 16 or more Counties enforcement of subordinate County laws over State General laws,and the subsequent declaration of separate Sovereignty by 16 or more counties of Washington State.
As Attorney General of Washington State ,Governor Gregoire was sworn in to uphold Washington State general laws.
As Attorney General of Washington State,Governor Gregoire has incorectly determined that Counties can interpret General laws as they deem fit,and allowed the alteration of General laws on a County by County basis.
This was malfeasance of the most basic sort.
As the Attorney General of Washington State,Governor Gregoire Failed to uphold the general laws of washington State,and not only failed to challange a declaration of separate sovereignty,but encouraged it by promoting,and distributing different altered versions of 69.51A
without any attempts to stop the practice of altering,and enforcing Washington State general laws.
You want to recall the Governor because you couldn't get stoned when she was A.G.? Pathetic.
Posted by: Mike H on June 14, 2007 06:55 PMYa know, while I don't necessarily lump you in with our all time favorite, Mr. David "Al Gore and Global Warming" Matthews, you really should stop trying to work against I-25.
At first it was the "does any other big county do this?" crap. I said back then that it doesn't matter...and I'm still saying it.
Let the voters decide in honest, open elections. Who cares what other counties do? Did King County care when they voted on the CAO what other counties did? No. Did they care when they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-brand the county? NO.
So, shut up.
Posted by: Chris on June 14, 2007 07:08 PMBut we can give it a successful whirl.
Posted by: GS on June 14, 2007 07:58 PMAnyway, my point in my post #2 above was that it's juvenile to say that all your opponents are dishonest. It's also counterproductive -- it's not exactly how you sway the undecided -- and suggests that you have no rational arguments on your side.
Posted by: Bruce on June 14, 2007 11:47 PMAnd this would leave sponsors to use the money for the actual election to inform people about the issue.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 15, 2007 02:34 AMThanks for the malfeasance cite.
-Doug
(King County Political Exile)
It took me six attempts to get through a very modest donation through paypal. The direct, credit card route never worked, though I tried a variety of things. I finally gave up and restarted my Paypal account.
Reminds me of my recent Dell/Vista purchase - I got the best deal by buying via a Msoft purchase link ( a good software bundle) - however the New Outlook has at least one major problem, and Vista is not compatible with an awful lot of third party applications.
There has been some press about people choosing XP over Vista on new computers, but very, very little on the application subject - very strange, especially at this point in the game.
-Doug Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Can a registered voter who signs an initiative, (and that initiative gets enough legal signatures) but didn't qualify because they couldn't PAY the gatherer's for their "take", does that voter become DISENFRANCHISED?
This is plain stupid....It's all about the money, not about the freedom or rights of the people.
Posted by: chris on June 15, 2007 08:42 AM"It's also counterproductive -- it's not exactly how you sway the undecided
Yes, and I'm so convinced your only altruistic goal is to see us become more effective in persuading the undecided.
Posted by: jopalm on June 15, 2007 10:07 AMPerhaps, but that would still be a leaps and bounds improvement over what we currently have locally...
Posted by: jopalm on June 15, 2007 01:06 PMApparently you don't understand the issue.
It's about creating an office that is directly accountable to the voters solely on the basis of its performance in election administration.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 15, 2007 04:42 PM
I am sure you would have had more donations too!!!
Sorry, I am just skeptical of efforts to create new bureaucracies in efforts to make things run more efficiently or productively. Fair elections are an important issue for most voters I would imagine, and I think if a majority of the voting public thought the elections were being run in such a way that they could not be trusted, then the County Executive would be voted out of office.
I admit I don't know much about this proposal, I'm just skepital of creating new Government silos that will hire new staff and suck up more taxpayer money.
Posted by: Splinter on June 15, 2007 04:50 PMI-25 doesn't "create new bureaucracies". It reshapes an existing bureaucracy to make it more responsive and accountable to the citizens.
Chris, to answer your earlier comment: "Paid Sig's IMO is like someone buying my vote. If you are a registered legal voter, you should be able to sign your name to an initiative knowing that your "vote" counts for something."
Thousands of signatures for this initiative were collected by volunteers. But collecting the large number of signatures required in the limited amount of time allowed also requires a major effort to reach all the voters who support the idea and are willing to sign. In practice, that means paying people to spend hours at a time standing around in public with petitions on a clipboard. Personally, I would like to see a secure way to sign petitions online, or laxer rules that would permit voters to print petitions on their home computer printers and sign and mail them in. But legislatures created rules to make the initiative qualification process difficult and expensive. The people who spend their time asking voters for signatures have to be compensated for their time just like any other working person.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 15, 2007 05:03 PMWell, at least the President has a 34% approval rating. Must really suck to be from the party led by Mr. Nineteen Percent Reid...;)
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 15, 2007 05:06 PM