I don't know Rep. Matt Shea (R-4th LD, around Spokane), but I consider him a bit of a hero, actually standing up for rights and liberty when most people, on either side of the aisle, don't.
Here's some of his fantabulous bills dropped for this session. I don't know if any of them will pass, but here's hopin'. Some of the highlights:
House Bill 2709 (Preventing federal regulation from affecting state gun laws), House Bill 2711 (Regarding the constitutional right of self defense), House Bill 2712 (Creating a federal tax account to protect state sovereignty), House Bill 2713 (Regulating arrests and searches by federal employees), House Bill 2714 (exempting initiative and referendum signatures from public disclosure), House Bill 2715 (Changing the electoral college representatives), House Bill 2716 (Allowing first repurchase of surplus transportation property), House Bill 2718 (Concerning defendants who are found to be guilty and mentally ill).
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 13, 2010 09:33 AM | Email ThisImagine a situation where the Presidential election is close--say, separated by fewer than 5 electoral votes. Suddenly election challenges would spring up in every close house district in the country, in addition to every close result statewide (since two at-large electors are also at stake).
So imagine how many counties are involved in any given house seat. Each one of those counties would have to participate in an election challenge for that one house seat.
This is a "reform" that sounds better in theory than in practice, because the entire country (except for districts and states that vote overwhelmingly for one side or the other) could be embroiled in election challenges in every presidential election cycle.
Posted by: Tim B. on January 13, 2010 11:51 AM2709: Silly but probably Constitutional. I doubt anyone would bother to challenge it.
2711: "The act also declares that the government is not allowed to mark, track or trace firearms possessed by law abiding citizens." Cannot legally supercede any Federal laws that may today or tomorrow cover this. Remove that and it's good so long as definitions are included on extent of force can be used. Otherwise, good bill.
2712: Laughable; reads like ideas from a high school freshman civics class in a backwater state. Read Section 5-- this would be bounced by the Supreme Court (if it got that far!) trivially.
2713: What exact problem is this even supposed to solve? Although, this would be good if marijuana were legalized on the state level. It's passing through the initiative system now and we have three legislative bills pushing it as well. This will keep the Fed from intruding on our states' rights here unless they had court support. Other than that... what's the point? Decent in some sort of concept, probably illegal in written execution. The FBI to arrest someone in Seattle by this law would need the permission of the King County sheriff's department? That's legally retarded.
2714: Did Timmy Eyman and the homophobes from R-71 get their widdle feely weelies hurt?
2715: Is there any point to this beside to have the Red Counties in Washington give King County the middle finger?
2716: I actually like this. It's very fair and reasonable at a glance, and would support it.
2718: Also fair and reasonable.
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on January 13, 2010 11:56 AMShrug. So we need to have good voting systems. I don't see this as a problem at all. What's wrong with that? Challenges to election counts are not things to be avoided, but inevitiabilies to be prepared for.
Joe Szilagyi: 2709: Silly but probably Constitutional. I doubt anyone would bother to challenge it.
It's absolutely constitutional, and the left will absolutely oppose it, because they know that it's easier for them to inherit gun restrictions from the federal government than to pass new ones.
2712: Laughable
What's good about it is not that the feds would accept it, but that it would represent a challenge to the federal authority, which would casll into question every thing that the feds do to our citizens and our state. The feds would not laugh at this, I assure you, if they understand the implications of shooting it down in court.
2713: What exact problem is this even supposed to solve?
Why do we need an exact problem?
2714: Did Timmy Eyman and the homophobes from R-71 get their widdle feely weelies hurt?
You were actually making reasonable arguments, mostly, until this. Don't be a tool.
2715: Is there any point to this beside to have the Red Counties in Washington give King County the middle finger?
Um ... is there any point to giving each region the power to choose its own electors for President? Oh right ... I just said the point. :-) You can disagree with the point, but to not see it is ... odd.
On the other hand, if the republicans continue to follow the old playbook of Gorton and other spineless RINO's, the democrats will win every time.
There are a heckuvalotta folks out here who would vote if there was a candidate who would actually stand up for constitutional limits on government and unalienable rights of the individual.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 13, 2010 02:32 PMA poll of 800 Washington state voters conducted on May 5-6, 2009 showed 77% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states, to make every vote, everywhere, politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
On April 28, 2009 Governor Gregoire signed the National Popular Vote bill, making Washington state the fifth state to join the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The bill would take effect when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
A referendum petition against the enactment of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington state garnered a total of 300 signatures and was abandoned on July 25, 2009.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy on January 14, 2010 09:23 AM
He doesn't represent the next generation of Republicans. His style and approach won't work West of the Cascades. Yes, we must stay true to the conservative principles that will bring us to power (a la Bob McDonnell in Virginia). But we have to be pragmatic about what will actually work in this state. We aren't Idaho. We aren't Utah. Shea serves his district just fine, I'm sure. But Rob McKenna is the style of Republican that gets into office in Washington, and therefore is able to actually do some good.
In the end, it's mostly a question of packaging. The Glenn Beck style just won't get us there in Washington State. Let's be practical. Shea's heart is obviously in the right place, but let's not get carried away thinking his brand is the savior of our statewide Republican future. Let's look to McKenna and replicate his path to success.
Posted by: gonzagamaniac on January 16, 2010 09:17 PMHe doesn't represent the next generation of Republicans. His style and approach won't work West of the Cascades. Yes, we must stay true to the conservative principles that will bring us to power (a la Bob McDonnell in Virginia). But we have to be pragmatic about what will actually work in this state. We aren't Idaho. We aren't Utah. I'm sure Shea serves his district just fine. But Rob McKenna is the style of Republican that gets into office in Washington, and therefore is able to actually do some good.
He is represents the next generation. The up-and-comers among WA R's don't want to be on the sidelines forever engaged in an unending and ponderous academic discussion of how conservative is conservative enough. They will want to actually get power and use it for good.
In the end, it's mostly a question of packaging. The Glenn Beck style just won't get us there in Washington State. Let's be practical. Shea's heart is obviously in the right place, but let's not get carried away thinking his brand is the savior of our statewide Republican future. Let's look to McKenna and replicate his path to success.
Posted by: gonzagamaniac on January 16, 2010 09:23 PM