On Saturday, September 22, the San Juan County Democrats met in Friday Harbor, our primary purpose being to listen to candidates, then decide on endorsements. Candidates endorsed are in bold.
U.S. Senator – Maria Cantwell
U.S. Representative, 2nd Congressional District – Rick Larsen, with the caveat that a letter will be sent to him detailing our concerns that we would like him to address
State Representative, Position 1, 40th Legislative District – Debra Lekanoff
State Representative, Position 2, 40th Legislative District – Jeff Morris
County Prosecuting Attorney – Randall Gaylord
County Assessor, Non-Partisan – John Kulseth. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
County Auditor, Non-Partisan – Milene Henley. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
County Clerk, Non-Partisan – Lisa Henderson. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
County Councilperson, District 3 (Lopez Island), Non-Partisan – Jamie Stephens
County Sheriff, Non-Partisan – Ronald Krebs
County Treasurer, Non-Partisan – Rhonda Pederson. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
County District Court Judge, Non-Partisan – Carolyn Jewett
State Supreme Court, Justice Position 2, Non-Partisan – Susan Owens. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
State Supreme Court, Justice Position 8, Non-Partisan – Steve Gonzalez.
State Supreme Court, Justice Position 9, Non-Partisan – Sheryl Gordon McCloud
State Court of Appeals, Division 1, District 3. Non-Partisan – Cecily Hazelrigg-Hernandez
San Juan County Superior Court, Judge Position 1. Non-Partisan – Kathryn Loring. Unopposed. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
State Initiative Measure No. 1631 – Approval of this measure would impose pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gases and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate impacts. Approve/Yes
State Initiative Measure No. 1634 – Approval of this measure would prohibit new or increased taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages, with exceptions. No
State Initiative Measure No. 1639 – Approval of this measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault weapons, etc. Approve/Yes
State Initiative to the Legislature No. 940 – Approval of this measure would require law enforcement to receive violence de-escalation, mental-health, and first-aid training, and provide first-aid; and change standards for use of deadly force, adding a “good faith” standard and independent investigation. Approve/Yes
State Advisory Vote No. 19 – On purely an advisory basis, this measure would advise the state legislature to either maintain or repeal the expansion previously approved by the legislature of the oil spill response and administrative taxes to crude oil or petroleum products received by pipeline. Maintain
San Juan County, Proposition No. 1 – Approval of this measure would establish and implement a 0.50% real estate excise tax previously approved by the County Council that would be used to fund affordable housing development in our county. 99% of the tax is to be paid by the buyer, with 1% paid by the seller. Go to www.yesforhomes.net for more information. No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
Lopez Solid Waste Disposal District, Proposition No. 1 – Approval of this measure would renew for one year the existing $0.10131 per thousand of assessed value property tax levy (approximately $105,000) used exclusively for solid waste disposal. 60% majority vote required.
No vote taken, no endorsement requested.
I have one more note to add about the endorsements today. When we were discussing Congressman Rick Larsen, I mentioned that he had sent us a pre-recorded four minute video statement to view. If you would like to view it, you can find it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axvLeY8R26Q. One of the interesting statements made by Rep. Larsen is that he supports getting rid of the income cap on taxing Social Security. You may be aware that incomes over about $120,000 have no FICA taken out, yet one of the best ways to preserve and possibly expand Social Security would be to remove this cap so that all income is subject to the tax. Member Eric Vittinghoff provides the following analysis and link for you to learn more about this: “This CBO report shows that while social security payroll taxes are regressive, the ratio of lifetime benefits to lifetime taxes is quite progressive. The progressivity is mainly due to benefits to the disabled, who tend to have low income and collect benefits for a relatively long period. That said, the benefit formula makes the benefits to earnings ratio somewhat progressive for retired workers as well, although longer survival among those with higher incomes offsets some of this effect. The benefit formula depends on “averaged indexed monthly income” (see footnote 13, page 5), which seems to suggest that the progressivity would not be changed by removing the cap — specifically, because the benefit depends on income, not FICA taxes paid.” The link to read the report is
https://webmail.centurylink.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=223852&part=2.2
Consideration of endorsements took up the entire meeting, therefore other business will be put off until a meeting in October, the date to be determined. However, I have three other things to include here. The first is an updated report on the fundraiser for the three Democratic Congressional candidates that was organized by four of our stalwart Democratic women. The latest total is just about $10,000, with Kim Schrier at $4,530, Lisa Brown at $3,925, and Carolyn Long at $1,525.
The second item is a report from Rita O’Clair about her experience observing the ballot processing for the recent primary. Here is Rita’s report:
Report on Observation of Ballot Processing
Ballots arrive in Friday Harbor either from the Post Office, or in special boxes constructed of heavy nylon, closed by a zipper and padlocked. They immediately go to Carlys Allen at our county elections office, and it is her job to verify the signatures on the ballots before anything else is done. Without opening the ballot envelopes, she compares each signature with one on file in state elections records, and has received special training in the recognition of valid signatures. With each signature that she verifies, the voter’s name is checked off, so that no one can vote more than once. If Carlys has any questions about the validity of a signature, she can phone the voter or even have the voter come by the elections office to verify that is their ballot.
The ballots are separated into large batches of about 200 and are stacked in trays. One by one, the trays are put onto the ballot processing table at the county elections office. The ballot processors work in pairs and we had 4 or 6 of them working each day. Usually 2 or 3 observers were present each day as well, and they were seated separately from the processing table. The building is an old, converted residence, and was not designed with ballot processing in mind, so the accommodations are awkward and space is tight, but they do the best they can. Each pair of processors divides the batch of ballots equally between the two of them. Each processor then slits open all of the envelopes in one half batch and removes the sleeved ballot from each. The envelopes are stacked carefully, and the processor can look through the aligned holes in the envelopes to make sure nothing remains in the envelopes. The envelopes, which are where the voters’ names are recorded, are set aside, and from that moment on the ballots themselves become anonymous. Each processor then removes the sleeves from the ballots and the sleeves are set aside. The processors then open each ballot in the half batch, searching for problems that would make the ballot difficult or impossible for a computer to read. For example, if someone writes in a candidate’s name, that ballot is set aside so that someone can later type the person’s name into the computer. When each processor has completed the half batch, then it is exchanged with the half batch of the other member of the pair, and the checking process is done again, so each ballot is checked twice.
Camolyn Armstrong, who is in charge of this ballot processing, then scans the ballots into her computer. Each ballot has a bar code on it, so the bar code number becomes the means by which any ballot can be recognized (and, for example, called up so that a problem can be fixed), but there is no way to link the bar code with the name of the voter. As Camolyn sits at her computer and examines each problem ballot, one by one, that ballot is projected onto a wall so that all of the ballot processors can see and discuss the problem. They reach a consensus and the ballot is emended in the computer, and the next problem ballot is drawn up.
At the end of the 4-day ballot processing, Camolyn instructs her computer to tally the votes for each candidate, and these totals are both sent to the state elections office and posted on the county elections office website. The original ballots are kept for a period of time but are eventually destroyed.
Anyone who would like to volunteer to be a ballot processing observer in the November election should check with Rita O’Clair for some pointers on how the observers are supposed to do their jobs.
The final item is a report on the state party meeting in Spokane last weekend, attended by our state committeeman Learner Limbach. Here is Learner’s report:
Report from Learner Limbach, San Juan County State Committeeman
Introduction
These meetings always involve a lot of preparation. We receive a large packet of proposed Charter and Bylaws Amendments, plus a large number of anywhere from 20-40 resolutions to review. In addition, those of us involved in Constituency Caucuses and/or committee work generally have extra meetings leading up to the state meeting.
My current roles:
Ag and Rural Issues Caucus, Western Washington Vice Chair
Environment and Climate Caucus, At-Large Executive Board Member
WSDCC Communications Committee
In addition to the above roles, I served on the Rules Committee at this meeting in place of our State Committeewoman Natasha Frey who could not attend. This turned out to be one of the most significant parts of the whole weekend because the Rules Committee meeting ended up lasting a total of 9 hours on Saturday as we worked through a proposal to create new rules governing Constituency Caucuses (more on this later in this report). In fact, I ended up missing the Communications Committee, Environment and Climate Caucus, Ag and Rural Caucus and all other meetings on Saturday because they all took place while we were still in the Rules meeting.
Key Resolutions
Reject Corporate PAC Money From the Fossil Fuel Industry
I spent a lot of time prior to the meeting co-authoring a resolution calling on the DNC to reinstate their corporate fossil fuel PAC money ban, a resolution ended up passing by a 3-1 margin. More info can be found at https://eccwa.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/open-letter-from-ecc-calls-on-dnc-to-reinstate-banon-fossil-fuel-donations/
Resolution to Create an Economic Equity Caucus of the Washington State Democratic Party
I also helped out with an effort to form an Economic Equity Caucus (EEC). The resolution to form the EEC passed and I plan to stay involved in the next stage of development which will include creating bylaws, etc. More info can be found at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WqvxDdZYp3BccL0iQjCpFk5GFxLsLSoV/view?usp=sharing [From the chair David Turnoy: I went to this site, and this is a fabulous document.]
Protect and Restore Snake River Salmon, Southern Resident Orcas, Treaty Rights, and Communities
This resolution called for breaching the Lower Snake River Dams. This has been a focus of the
Environment and Climate Caucus for quite some time. However, we got a lot of pushback from people who feared that the party passing this resolution would hurt candidates in Eastern Washington. Ultimately we agreed to pull the resolution (retract from a floor vote) with the understanding that a council will be formed with ECC, Ag and Rural and others to work out solutions to prepare communities for the inevitable breaching of the dams. More information about this and other actions taken over the course of the weekend by the Environment and Climate Caucus Spokane Meeting Summary posted on the ECC website https://eccwa.wordpress.com/2018/09/20/spokane-meeting-summary-september- 2018/
Remove the Enloe Dam
While we punted on the LSRD resolution, we DID pass a resolution calling for the removal of the Enloe Dam. The Enloe Dam is situated on the Similkameen River near Oroville, WA. It is currently not operational and its only function is blocking salmon from accessing several hundred miles of spawning habitat upstream. Planning is underway to rebuild the dam to be able to generate power again, but the power it would generate is not needed and many think it is not even a sound financial investment. We are planning to send the resolution to Governor Inslee and do what we can to build support for removal of the dam.
http://methowvalleynews.com/2018/04/20/okanogan-county-pud-signs-contract-for-enloe-damdesign/
There were many other great resolutions passed in Spokane. One of my favorites called for Abolishing ICE. All the resolutions will soon be posted on the Washington State Democrats website. I will keep tabs on that and let everyone know when that happens.
Advocacy Committee
The Advocacy Committee that was formed earlier this year presented their first recommendations and legislative priorities. While the priorities included many great things, there was no mention of resource management or agriculture. I was, however, pleased to see Climate Action and Environmental Protection on the list.
Rules Committee
The main issue at hand that was of major significance in the Rules Committee was a proposal to create new rules governing Constituency Caucuses. State Party Chair Tina Podlodowski has been pushing for this since becoming Chair. There are some valid reasons for wanting to formalize the relationship with Caucuses. For context, Caucuses have always been formed by the State Central Committee through a resolution passed at a state meeting. They are their own incorporated entities and manage their own membership lists and bank accounts, etc. The issue is that there has never really been a formal acknowledgement within the party defining how Caucuses relate to the party as a whole. The party reserves rooms at the state meetings for Caucuses to meet in, and naturally there are liability issues, etc. The party would like all caucuses to have bylaws that meet certain criteria and for all caucuses to agree to the code of conduct and have every member agree to it as well. There are other reasons but those are the main ones as I remember.
Earlier this year Tina put Andrew Villanueve, a member on the Rules Committee, in charge of the drafting a proposal. Everyone else received the draft proposal two weeks prior to the Spokane Meeting.
With the heavy workload in the weeks leading up to the meeting, very few people had time to really review the proposed rules.
The rules as drafted by Andrew Villanueve ended up being highly contentious. I had planned to go to part of the Rules Committee meeting to observe, but since Natasha wasn’t at the meeting she offered me her proxy, which allowed me to participate as a voting member. Little did I know it would turn into a 9-hour meeting.
The main pushback against the new rules came from the caucuses themselves. Many complained they had not had adequate time to familiarize themselves with the proposal to even have an informed opinion, and didn’t have time to discuss it with their entire Caucus. Some of the biggest issues with the proposal were:
• Referring to Caucuses going forward as “Councils”
• Requiring all Caucuses to submit annual reports and annual work plans for approval to the State Party Executive Committee
• Requiring all Caucuses to provide membership lists with contact information to the Executive
Committee
• Requiring Caucuses to provide the Executive Committee with draft press releases prior to them
being posted and change them as requested.
• Giving power to the Executive Committee to revoke status of a Caucus for any reason.
In short, the proposal was a big power grab by the Party, with little or no benefit to the Caucuses themselves. The main benefit for Caucuses that was being claimed was that Caucuses would be “officially” recognized. Many of us had a hard time figuring out how that was really a benefit when compared to what we have currently.
There are some 15 caucuses in total, and throughout the day Caucus Chairs were communicating with each other about the proposal. It soon became clear that many caucuses were opposed to the new rules. Both the Environment and Climate Caucus and the Ag and Rural Caucus, both of which I serve on the boards of, were opposed.
In the Rules Committee Meeting I ended up being the voice for the Caucuses as most other committee members were in favor of most of the proposal. We spent about 2 hours on the entire rest of the Rules Committee agenda and 7 hours on the Caucus Rules Proposal. The reason it took so long was that we went through every point twice. First getting input from the Caucus chairs and having minimal discussion, then a second time to actually word-smith and negotiate new language that everyone could live with.
We made enormous progress in this process and it actually got to the point where I thought we had something passable.
However, on Saturday evening I shared the edited proposal with many of the Caucus Chairs and Central Committee Members who are members of Caucuses, and they still could not get behind it as it did not go far enough. I was faced with having to push for a proposal that we had just spent the entire day reworking, or to listen to the concerns that I was hearing and push for the proposal to be tabled during the Sunday General Meeting. I chose the latter, on the basis that we have functioned for years without this structure in place and we can certainly wait another three or six months.
After more discussion among Rules Committee Members, on Sunday a motion was made to table the proposal so that it would go back to the rules committee to be reworked with all the Caucuses being part of the process. I was the first speaker in support of this motion and explained that everyone spent the whole day Saturday in a good faith effort to create a passable proposal, but there were too many people who were still uncomfortable and Caucuses deserved a chance to be part of the process from the beginning. The motion passed with a near unanimous vote.
I have been invited to participate in the next stage of the process as a bridge between the Rules Committee and the Caucuses and I hope that I can help the process result in a mutually agreeable solution. I believe there are some basic things that should be codified, such as having some standard bylaws requirements and everyone agreeing to the party’s code of conduct, which is a useful tool.
This is the chair again. I just want to extend a special thank you to Learner for his amazing work at the state party level. We are extremely lucky to have him representing us.
Thanks for reading,
David Turnoy, Chair
davidgeri@centurylink.net
360-376-4165