A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

A RESOLUTION WORTH KEEPING 3 INDEX OF WORKER FREEDOM 9

LIVING LIBERTYJANUARY 2008 | WWW.EFFWA.ORG A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

2008 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK 5

Continued on page 2

here was a buzz in the air at the studio in Toluca Lake, CA outside of Burbank. The technicians

at Victory Studios were used to dealing with celebrity wannabees in their day-to-day work.

But today they would be working with Joe Mantegna, current star of the hit series Criminal Minds on CBS, and an award winning actor whose list of movie, television and theatre credits runs to fi ve pages.

And Mantegna was coming to the studio at the behest of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation to be the narrator for EFF’s education reform documentary Flunked, to be released early in 2008.

Flunked focuses on many of today’s schools nationwide that are “getting it right”—attaining great results in terms of college preparation, high test scores, and graduating competent workers for tomorrow’s economy. Then, in the interest of sparking reform, Flunked examines how and why those schools are excelling: great curricula, great teachers, strong leaders and a commitment to excel. This will not be a hit piece on teachers’ unions or existing public school systems. Rather, it simply shows what is working throughout the U.S. and what people nationwide need to know is available. In other words, Flunked is all about solutions.

Preparing for the invasion of Mantegna and his entourage, the anticipation grew. Everybody knew the group would be fashionably late, Hollywood-style. They were supposed to arrive around 10 a.m., but noon was more likely. This is a Hollywood star, after all.

It didn’t happen that way.Precisely at 10 a.m., Mantegna walked into the

studio—by himself. No limousines. No hangers-on in the neighborhood. Just a regular guy in a white sweatshirt who has been referred to as the “uber pro.” A photo shoot begins.

EFF’s Steven Maggi, the executive producer of Flunked, said Mantegna talked about everyday things.

A native of the Chicago area, “Mantegna talked about the Bears and the Cubs,” Maggi said. “He talked about the ‘debate’ over which is the real Chicago pizza—deep dish or Sicilian, and he talked about family. And what is true Italian beef.

“He may be a Hollywood star, but this guy is a real person,” Maggi said.

After a photo shoot that has Mantegna holding an apple, he eats the apple. He’s missed breakfast.

This is the same guy who is known throughout the world. Yet, he has never become obsessed with his celebrity. The same guy who was talking to some Mr. Average Joe on the street corner after his EFF taping. Pretense is not his middle name. He’s one of us despite decades of acting success.

Joe starred in the movies Bugsy, The Godfather, Part III, and TV shows like The Simpsons, Joan of Arcadia—for which he was ranked among TV Guide’s “50 Greatest TV Dads of All Time”—and the currently acclaimed Criminal Minds. He won a Tony for his performance in the play Glengarry Glen Ross, a Best Actor award from the Venice Film Festival, and has been nominated for three Emmys, and a Golden Globe.

But he remains the kid from Cicero, IL who grew up loving the Chicago Cubs and Chicago Bears.

“What I like about this movie is that it seems to offer a comprehensive guideline to fi x some of the problems we have in public education,” Mantegna said in an interview with EFF. “I am one of those people that, if asked, ‘what do you think is the single factor that could change life as we know it,’ my answer would be education. They talk about the ‘end all’ of things, and that’s really it. If we can fi nd a way to properly educate the young people, that is the key to fi xing just about every problem we have,” Mantegna said.

“Anything that involves the enhancement and the future of public education, I’m interested in.”

An un-Hollywood starMantegna has been married for more than 30 years—to the same woman. He and wife Arlene are parents to two daughters. The youngest, Gina, 17, has been acting since she was 11 and appeared with her father in the December 19 episode of Criminal Minds.

The eldest daughter, Mia, is autistic.

T

HOLLYWOOD STAR

by Lauren Zammit with Tom Henry

JOE MANTEGNATEAMS WITH EFF

2 LIVING LIBERTY

3

4

56891012

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org

VOLUME 18, Issue 1

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue

3 LETTER FROM LYNN A RESOLUTION WORTH KEEPING EFF LAUNCHES MONTHLY “FREEDOM MATTERS” EVENTS

4 PUBLIC EDUCATION IS A MISSION, NOT AN INSTITUTION SPECIAL SESSION OPENS A CAN OF WORMS: HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT ALLOWS BUDGET SHELL GAME 5 EFF URGES U.S. SUPREME COURT TO UPHOLD VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW ELECTION 2007: LESSONS LEARNED 6 2008 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK 8 2007 INDEX OF WORKER FREEDOM

9 INDEX OF WORKER FREEDOM: WASHINGTON GETS A C+

10 INVEST IN EFF TEACHERS UNION GAMBLING WITH EDUCATION BY PUSHING TAX INCREASE

12 YOU CAN BE HEARD HOW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION SCHEDULE OF CAN CLASSES FOR WINTER, 2008

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Tom Henry

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“The steel-electric ferries are “generally considered to be

in good condition.”

– WSDOT offi cials on October 30, 2007

The steel-electrics have reached “a turning point that requires

emergency action.”

– WSDOT offi cials three weeks later.

“ Pg. 7

“It is an ongoing problem,” he told the McClatchy-Tribune news service in a TV Week interview in early December. “She’s got learning disabilities I’m going to have to deal with all of her life. That’s the stuff that is important. That’s the stuff that makes losing a part pale into comparison,” he said.

And that is just one of the reasons Mantegna takes his family wherever his acting parts take him.

“I think you participate with your kids by immersing yourself as much as possible in their everyday life…be present,” he said.

“I have one child who has autism so that offers a whole new unique set of circumstances,” Mantegna said. “She has benefi ted very much from the kind of family-geared emphasis of doing everything together as a family unit. I wouldn’t let my occupation interfere with us acting as a family unit,” he said.

Mantegna told EFF, “My line of work afforded me a lot of traveling, but we made a decision early on that I’ve waited long enough in my life to achieve some of

the greater success of my career that allowed me to do this kind of work to afford me that much travel. I wasn’t about to say ‘OK, I’ve made it to this point, and now I’ve got kids…daddy will be gone for a few months, see you later, good luck.

“And we realized that wasn’t the way we wanted to do things,” Mantegna said. “So, part of the deal was that we took our kids everywhere—they’ve been all over the world. Our kids have been everywhere from Russia to Australia. My kids have gone to school all over the world, and have had a real well-rounded education in terms of exposure, and I think that turned out be very benefi cial.”

But Mantegna thinks it is up to parents to make their voices known and demand improvement in the public school system.

“Be involved in the schools. Don’t just assume that [your kids] go to school and come back at three o’clock and it’s their business what happens during that time,” he said. “No, go down there, see what’s going on, make

your presence known, see if there’s any way to get involved.

“I think the true stars are the ones that embody not just admirable qualities but try to live full and complete lives with some class and grace as opposed to being this wild cannon going off and ‘Everybody get out of my way,’” he told McClatchy.

It is probably unnecessary to point out that Mantegna has never appeared on the cover of some national tabloid.

“We weren’t looking for a politically active star to narrate the movie,” EFF’s Steven Maggi said. “We were looking for somebody who cares

about the issue. We found our guy and we are thankful we did.”

Lauren Zammit is an education assistant at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and associate producer of “Flunked.”

Joe Mantegna continued from page 1 . . .

4. Special session opens a can of worms...

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

BA resolution worth keeping

e honest. How many New Year resolutions have you already broken?

In January 2007, a friend of mine resolved to get rid of his road rage. Here’s a paraphrased version of what transpired.

February: “I’m not calm yet, but I think if I cut out coffee in the morning, I won’t be so edgy.”

March: “It’s impossible to stay calm with so many idiots on the road.”

June: “I rear-ended one of those idiots and my car’s in the shop.”

Thanksgiving: “I’m moving to Oklahoma where I can drive a Holstein.”

January 2008 update: My friend now lives in Austin where he telecommutes. He puts his road rage resolution in the “success” category, but someday I’m going to work up the courage to ask him if his dog agrees.

Or how about this resolution:January 1: “I need to drop 14 pounds, so I’m going to

hit the gym.”January 3: “Well, I’ll just eat up all this left-over

holiday junk in the fridge fi rst, and then it will make more sense to go to the gym.”

January 10: “The parking lot at the gym is really full. I’ll come back later.”

January 30: “It’s raining and I’m too depressed to work out. I wonder what’s in the fridge.”

Frankly, most of the items on our resolution lists are pretty self-centered, and we cut ourselves a lot of slack for accomplishing the ones that aren’t. This propelled me many years ago to stop making typical resolutions.

We humans, however, do feel the need to measure our progress. For some people across the globe, the progress they measure is whether or not they survived another year of poverty, disease and political upheaval. It’s only prosperous people who have the luxury of measuring progress on things like losing 14 pounds.

In life’s inventory, how we actually spend time, money and energy is what really matters most to us. For me, only a handful of things really count, and relationships are at the core of each one.

Take good citizenship, for example. When we value the innate worth of each person, we are willing to live under laws that protect the life, liberty and property of individuals. We support punishment for those who oppress, abuse or unjustly kill another human. We eschew forced uniformity, because that would invalidate the right of an individual to have different ideas and dreams.

In other words, certain human freedoms, such as those spelled out in our Constitution, should trump survival of the fi ttest. You may have more guns and ammunition than your neighbor, but that does not give you the right to assume ownership of their property. Just because you don’t like my race or gender does not mean you can take my life. Just because I want your Jaguar does not mean I can drive it out of your garage. Just because your daughter wants to listen to her favorite music without buying it does not mean she should download it.

When protections for life, property and personal liberty break down in a society, trouble is on the horizon. No matter what its leaders say, a society that is cavalier about such things disregards the value of human beings.

Our Founders spent their lives and often their fortunes creating a system of governance that recognizes, respects and protects the innate value of each person. Some people mistakenly describe their zeal to protect individual liberty as selfi shness. In fact, it is the opposite.

One can see this contrast in certain religious ideologies. A supreme being that demands unthinking servitude does not have loving relationships in mind. Neither do the followers who force allegiance or else they will, at their own hand, destroy lives. Free choice is at the root of genuine love and respect, whether it be deity or family. We freely choose to love. We freely choose the consequences if we do not.

Humankind’s penchant for power makes it diffi cult to protect individual freedom. Our Founders warned us about this. In America, few people actually seize private property at gunpoint. But regulators are seizing it right and left through the power of their pens. Shoplifting intellectual property is rampant. Powerful lawmakers routinely discuss how much of our personal wealth we should be allowed to keep.

In light of this, a couple of questions are worth asking and answering: What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? What kind of country will we leave them on our current trajectory? What is required to change the course?

For most of the past 100 years, we have counted on politicians and educators to shape the future. This might have been all right if we had remained vigilant about what was going on—if we’d been clearer with the people we elected about the need to limit government and if we had dumped them out of offi ce when they failed to heed.

Perhaps we would not be in this jam if we had been clearer with our children about the need for self-discipline and let them suffer or enjoy the resultant consequences. If we had remembered that educating our children remained a responsibility we could delegate but not abandon, our education system would be quite different.

But we didn’t pay enough attention, so the consequences are now ours to reap…and change.

The majority of leaders in both education and government are ill-prepared. This isn’t meant to demean the extraordinary people who are spending a signifi cant portion of their lives teaching our children or serving excellently in an elected offi ce. It just means they aren’t the majority anymore. For the most part, they aren’t calling the shots.

As a result, we’ll be in some rough waters during this next decade. We need to weather it while simultaneously preparing new leaders to make signifi cant course corrections. Preparation of this nature requires long-range thinking and level-headed diligence to the unchanging principles of human freedom. Transformational change takes time, because it is cultural…because we are complex creatures…and because it must be freely chosen.

At the beginning of this new year, you can count on EFF for certain things. What we believe, teach and model will uphold these basic principles:• Government is empowered by the people it serves.

Its laws and regulations should not undermine the rewards of hard work and entrepreneurism.

• Citizens must not ask government to provide services or goods that are outside its scope of responsibility.

• Self-governance is the indispensable cornerstone of American freedom.

You can be assured that we routinely ask hard questions of ourselves, such as:• Are we identifying, rewarding and measuring what

really matters?• Are we successfully expanding our communications

boundaries?• Is this a place where ideas are nurtured and best prac-

tices are discovered? • Is our research sound?• Are we persuasive?• Do we properly execute our strategic plans and ana-

lyze our mistakes?• Can we effectively mobilize people?• Are we building leaders?

Most of us have problems when our new year’s resolutions collide with our old year’s bad habits. But some habits are worth substituting with others that are worth pursuing. Becoming a good citizen is a habit worth building in 2008. What will that look like for you?

We’ve allowed our citizenship obligations to deteriorate for such a long time that most people don’t even know what it means anymore. Restoring this indispensable obligation to its rightful place will require us to spend extra time, money and energy. When we limit the scope and reach of government, respectful, healthy relationships with each other have a chance to fl ourish. It’s among the handful of things that really matter.

May we help?

eginning in January 2008, EFF will sponsor monthly “Freedom Matters” Events on the

fourth Thursday of each month from 7–9 p.m. These events will be held in Olympia and broadcast

live over the internet to Citizen Action Network (CAN) members around the state. Both on-location and remote attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions about the relevant issues being discussed. After the event is over, it will be packaged into a 55-minute program and made available on EFF’s website and to local cable access stations.

“We are very excited about the potential for these monthly events,” said Juliana McMahan, the new Director for the Citizen Action Network. “Today’s technology allows us to network participants from all over the state without having to travel hundreds of miles. Remote attendees will be able to ask questions either by e-mail or phone.

“This will give CAN members the opportunity to get information directly from experts and ask them questions. We want to empower and educate citizens so they can have a meaningful impact on public policy in their local government.”

January’s very timely topic will be the 2008 Legislative Session. Invited speakers include EFF’s CEO Lynn Harsh, Senator Tim Sheldon, Paul Guppy from the Washington Policy Center and Booker Stallworth from the Senate Republican Caucus.

Please contact Juliana McMahan (JMcMahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482) if you would like to attend “Freedom Matters” in person or if you are interested in hosting a group to participate live in your home (a high-speed internet connection, large monitor, and sound are needed).

EFF Launches Monthly “Freedom Matters” Events

B

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Special session opens a can of worms: hold on to your wallet

he problem with calling snap “special sessions” of the Legislature is that it opens up too many oppor-tunities for mischief. When Gov. Gregoire called

the special session in late November (with encourage-ment from EFF), the rats came out of their holes and what could have been a productive one-day confab got turned into something of a circus that the Governor re-fused to rein in.

The idea was to re-impose the one percent annual increase in property tax revenues collected by local governments—something the voters already approved with the overwhelming passage of I-747 – but which had been tossed by the ever alert Washington State Supreme Court on a technicality.

The bottom line to the ruling was that voters were too stupid to know what they were voting for or against. Unconstitutional!

Now, going into an election year, the majority party doesn’t want to have a tax revolt under way. But it promises to re-visit the property tax issue during the 2008 session of the legislature

Majority leadership did its best to spike offerings other than the one percent cap, but thought them worthy enough for consideration when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Sen. Jeannie Kohl-Welles, representing a hopelessly liberal district in Seattle, offered an amendment before the Senate Ways and Means Committee that would allow, among other things, tax collections to rise by 3 percent or more each year. Committee chair Margarita Prentice urged rejection of the amendment, but deemed it worthy of consideration this year.

The Legislature also refused to address the problem of “banked” taxing capacity by local governments. What does that mean? It means that if local taxing districts could have raised taxes by 6 percent between 1986 and 2001, any unused capacity is still in the “bank,” and could be used today, without voter approval.

Finally, the legislature approved the “State of Washington Loan Shark Bill.” That’s not what it is called, but that’s what it is.

It allows families making less than $57,000 to defer up to 50% of their property tax payments. The state will make up the difference but, with a large catch. You will be charged interest (7% right now) and the state will have a lien on your property. When you sell the property or die, the state will be fi rst in line to collect. In the name of tax relief, it will put people further into debt.

Few wanted to vote for that bill because it hurts the working poor and the elderly more than anyone else, but a majority decided to kiss the pig…particularly since it was being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, who calls herself an economist.

“This is not the end of the property-tax issue. This is really the kickoff,” Brown said.

Stay tuned. EFF will be vocal on this issue, but our members are who count and can make a difference.

The battle goes on.

s we prepare for the annual January cries from the education establishment of “we need more

money,” I believe we must look at all education reform efforts with our own mantra, “let’s support real public education,” and not just put Band-Aids (and lots more money) into the existing system.

We all agree on the importance of a good education. Unfortunately, agreeing on how to provide a quality education isn’t so easy. It’s one of the most debated issues of our time.

Should students be in public schools, private schools, prep schools, charter schools, religious schools, vocational schools, online schools or home schools? Should they be subject to academic benchmarks and standardized testing, or encouraged to work at their own pace? Should they wear uniforms? Should they be in classes of fi ve, ten, fi fteen or more students? Should they learn through drills and memorization or hands-on experience?

The list of such questions is endless, and there are advocates for all sides.

In reality, the best answer is: All of the above. No one needs to be told that children are unique. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and personality types, and their abilities, aptitudes and learning styles are just as varied.

That’s why it’s surprising to see how narrowly most people defi ne “public education.” In general, we think of just one system of schools: our local public schools. These all operate on much the same schedule, under the same rules and standards, using similar models and curriculum.

If students were the same, this might work. But they’re not. And it’s not working.

A close look at what we can expect to see during the upcoming legislative session regarding education is pretty much a repeat of what we hear every year. Mandated small class sizes for K-3, for example, appear to be something that we will see. A smaller class size is not a bad thing, certainly, but it is not the panacea that will correct all the ills of public education. No study has linked academic success to smaller class size.

Another item being proposed is yet another “lowering of the bar” for Washington Students. The proposal is to have students who have not met state standards in

reading and writing in the graduating classes of 2008, 2009 and 2010 still graduate from high school without earning a Certifi cate of Academic Achievement or a Certifi cate of Individual Achievement. Additional course work similar to that required for students not passing the math standards would apply.

Why is it that, when we struggle getting the results we want from our kids, instead of fi xing why they struggle, we just make it easier for them to pass? Life doesn’t work that way, as they will soon learn in the world of work.

We traveled the country in search of schools that are having success. The one constant between every one of

these schools is the challenging of the students to succeed.

Finally, we will hear about the need for more money…lots of money…again in 2008. While we agree that it is not cheap to educate our youth, we must fi rst look to the goals we want to achieve and how we intend to achieve them, before we dig down into our wallets once again.

Public education is much bigger than one type of school. It’s a mission. At the end of the day, our national, state and local education policy should be focused on achieving a result: an educated public. It should be about serving students, not preserving a system.

How public education is delivered must be as unique and varied as students themselves.

Think of what we can accomplish if we change the way we think about public education. Public schools are not serving all students well. They simply can’t. No single system of schools can. But unless parents have the means to pay for alternatives, they are left without any.

This is unacceptable in a state that collects $11,400 per year per student from taxpayers for K-12 public education. Funding for public education should be used to enable parents to choose the very best learning options for each of their children. And those options should be many.

What is true public education, after all?

by Tom Henry

T

he Washington Supreme Court ruled Nov. 21 that the legislature’s circumvention of Initiative

601 was “appropriate.” The majority opinion leaned heavily on the argument that “the Legislature has ple-nary power to enact laws except as limited by our state and federal constitutions.”

The high court reversed a lower court ruling that the state had violated the initiative by adopting the 2005 budget and various tax increases in excess of the established spending limit without a vote of the people as required by law. To “cure” its violation, the legislature passed a bill in 2006 recalculating the spending limit.

Last year a trial court ruled the new spending limit was higher than it should have been because the legislature had counted budget transfers as expenditures. The court found budget writers had intentionally circumvented the spending limit in an effort to increase taxes, as

revealed by incriminating emails among various state employees.

The budget transfers involved $250 million that was shuffl ed between accounts in an effort to artifi cially increase the state’s expenditure limit. Lawmakers then passed new cigarette and alcohol taxes without a vote of the people.

The Supreme Court found these actions to be within the power of the Legislature. Justice Mary Fairhurst, writing for the fi ve-vote court majority, concluded, “The state expenditure limit is a creature of statute. … The legislature is free to amend the expenditure limit and the process by which it is calculated. The legislature exercised this prerogative when it enacted the 2006 amendment.”

by Scott DilleyWashington Supreme Court allows budget shell game

T

by Steven Maggi

Public education is a mission, not an institution

A

LYNN HARSH CHATS WITH LONG-TIME EFF MEMBER DR. ED DRUM ON THE STATE CAPITOL STEPS FOLLOWING AN EVENT CONCERNING RESTORATION OF I-747 DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN LATE NOVEMBER.

Continued on page 11

INSTEAD OF FIXING WHY THEY

STRUGGLE, WE JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR

THEM TO PASS?”

“WHY IS IT THAT, WHEN

WE STRUGGLE GETTING

THE RESULTS WE WANT

FROM OUR KIDS,

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

elcome to the world of Washington state elec-tions, where ballots take forever to count, where

it’s hard to trust the vote results, and where nearly one-fi fth of ballots are fi lled out by election workers. That’s what we saw in the aftermath of the November 6 elec-tion, and it’s a picture of what our future elections are going to look like, even at their best.

The goal in an election system is to reach a point where every legal voter gets the opportunity to cast a ballot, illegal voters can’t vote, and there’s a level of accuracy that allows both winning and losing candidates to have faith in the results. That’s a lofty goal, but it is what we should be striving for to maintain our republican gov-ernment. Washington’s elections, however, are going down a different road, one that will inevitably lead to more controversial endings.

That’s the real lesson we learned from the 2007 elec-tion. The problems evident in it stemmed from our state’s policy of encouraging (some would say forcing) the widespread use of mail ballots. And since we are continuing to increase mail ballots, the problems also will continue.

For example, expect close elections to not be decided until long after Election Day. In most of the 2007 races, victory was secured within a few days, certainly by the Friday after Election Day. But in the close elections, such as the Sheriff’s race in Snohomish County or the school levy amendment issue (EHJR 4204), the results weren’t conclusive until a week or more after the vote. In fact, the school levy issue was still losing as late as November 12, before the fi nal tallies from the large counties on the west side put it over the top. Such slow counting isn’t an anomaly; remember the Reichert-Burner race from 2006 that wasn’t concluded until a week after Election Day.

Some counties were able to fi nish their vote counts rel-atively quickly. Thurston County, for example, brought in extra help on election night. The real reason why King (and I suspect some of the others) was slow in counting was the huge number of ballots they duplicated.

Every mail ballot is manually inspected upon arrival and, if election workers think the voter’s intent won’t be captured correctly by the tabulating machine, they fi ll out a new ballot with what they think the voter meant, and run that “duplicated ballot” through the machine. Sound time-consuming? It is, especially when you’re dupli-cating 51,000 ballots, as King County did. That’s 14.4 percent of the votes that were “interpreted” by election workers. Thank vote-by-mail for that statistic since in the polling place a voter gets a chance to re-do an improperly completed ballot. The duplication bottleneck only will get worse if King County pushes forward with its plan to move to vote-by-mail, adding several hundred thousand more mail ballots to the system. And it’s not just a King County problem. Every vote-by-mail county duplicates between 5 and 10 percent of ballots on average.

Was the win for the school levy amendment the result of shenanigans in King County? Honestly, as of yet, there’s no documented evidence that it was. But con-fi dence in the result is not helped by the insecurity of mail ballots, the slowness of the count, the practice of duplicating ballots and the county’s reluctance to provide precinct-level reports during the count. These, and other issues, all need to be addressed if Washington is to have a fair and accurate election system.

One possible way to help would be to require ballots to arrive on Election Day, as Oregon does. That would prevent the problem of waiting for all ballots to straggle in two weeks after Election Day. It also would make the total number of ballots known right at the beginning,

making it tough to add illegal ballots later on. But this is not a perfect solu-tion because it places the burden of timely delivery on the sometimes-in-consistent U.S. Postal Service instead of on the voter. We don’t see any per-fect solutions because this is one of the inherent weaknesses of vote-by-mail.

EFF has been criticized for continuing to voice con-cern about vote-by-mail. We’ve been told “the ship has sailed” on that issue and to focus on securing mail bal-lots. We do think some things can be done to improve the security of vote-by-mail, but the bottom line is that we can’t see any way to make that system as secure as a poll-based system. For that reason, we will continue to recommend poll voting (with limited mail balloting for those who can’t go to the polls) as the most secure option.

In the meantime, improvements certainly can be made in the voter registration system, in how ballots are mailed and in how they are secured. We also think counties should be more transparent in publicizing the reports and documents that show how the ballot count is progressing. See the “policy recommendations” section of this issue for more details on these reforms.

Even if some of those ideas are implemented, however, the 2007 elections have shown the likelihood of delays, confusion, errors and even fraud in the 2008 elections and beyond. To prevent that, we will have to rely on the unsung heroes who work in elections departments, who observe elections and who investigate returns to ensure accuracy and security. EFF will be doing all it can next year to support their efforts, and we’d encourage you to educate yourself and join us in preserving your voice in our republic.

s it constitutional to require voters to show photo identifi cation before they can vote? The U.S. Supreme

Court is reviewing that question in two cases from Indiana.

Responding to national reports of voter fraud, as well as a newspaper investigation that revealed more than 300 dead people on the voter rolls in Indianapolis, the Indiana Legislature passed a law in 2005 requiring vot-ers to present government-issued photo identifi cation at the voting booth. In order to minimize the impact of the law, the state bureau of motor vehicles issues photo identifi cation cards for no charge.

The Indiana Democratic Party and the Indiana chapter of the ACLU sued to invalidate the law, arguing it would disenfranchise elderly, minority and poor voters. Ironi-cally, the parties failed to produce a single voter who was prevented from voting because of the law. A federal district court ruled to uphold the law in April 2006 and, in January 2007, the Seventh Circuit affi rmed the rul-ing. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation fi led a “friend-of-the-court” brief with the Supreme Court in support of Indiana’s photo ID requirement, arguing that the law is reasonable and justifi ed. Voter fraud is a serious prob-lem in U.S. elections and states have an important inter-est in protecting the integrity of elections. Not only can voter fraud affect close elections, but fraud irreversibly shatters voters’ confi dence in the electoral process.

Our brief pointed out numerous examples of voter fraud that have been discovered by national election experts, the Department of Justice, local prosecutors and journalists. The brief discussed the impact illegal ballots had in Washington state’s 2004 gubernatorial election.

Photo identifi cation laws secure elections at the most basic level: they ensure that only legitimate voters vote.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that show-ing photo identifi cation helps prevent fraud. The only published study of voter turnout since Indiana adopted its photo ID law shows that voter turnout actually increased, particularly in counties with high concen-trations of Democratic voters.

Indiana is not alone in advancing elec-tion security and voter confi dence through photo identifi cation requirements. Many other states, concerned with voter fraud, have passed photo identifi cation laws or are considering similar security measures. The Court’s decision in this case will greatly impact whether Wash-ington can legally enact election reforms like requiring proof of citizenship and strengthen-ing similar ID requirements. For the future of election security in Washington and nationwide it’s vital for the Court to rule that states are constitution-ally allowed to protect election integrity by making sure only legal voters can vote.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments January 9, 2008, and a rul-ing is expected by July.

by Jonathan BechtleElection 2007: Lessons learned

W

by Michael Reitz & Jonathan BechtleEFF urges U.S. Supreme Court to uphold voter identifi cation law

I

in this case willwhether Wash-y enact election uiring proof of

strengthen-equirements. of election

Washington it’s vital rule that titution-protect ty by

y legal

reme hear aryul-y

6 LIVING LIBERTY

ELECTION REFORMSRequire proof of citizenship. One of the major loopholes still remaining in the

state voter registration database is a lack of citizenship verifi cation. Currently the only safeguards depend on the knowledge and honesty of the registrant, and we know that hasn’t been adequate. This problem should be addressed in two ways:1. Require proof of citizenship from new registrants. Arizona successfully has enacted

this type of law, and so far has won all legal challenges against it. This reform could be done in connection with the federal Real ID act. Because of the new “enhanced” drivers’ licenses, Washington state license offi ces are already prepared to review citizenship documentation.

2. Require state courts to provide county auditors with information on jurors who decline to serve due to not being citizens. Currently the law does not allow this information to be shared. The Department of Social and Health Services also should be required to provide basic information on its non-citizen clients to the Secretary of State to be compared against the voter registration roll.

Prohibit ballot forwarding. Under current law, county auditors are given the choice of whether they wish to forward ballots and many of them do so. This practice should be stopped. Forwarding ballots makes it more diffi cult to keep accurate voter rolls and increases the likelihood that illegal votes will be cast. Snowbirds, students and other voters temporarily absent can easily be provided with a ballot without using mail forwarding.

Increase transparency in ballot counts. With the move to vote-by-mail, ballot tabulation also has moved from the polling place to the elections offi ce. Many requirements are in place to protect the ballot chain-of-custody and to produce an audit trail but, without transparency, it’s diffi cult to determine if these requirements are being followed properly. Situations like the unusual switch in support for EHJR 4204 (school levy amendment) over two weeks of ballot counting cast doubt on the integrity of the process. Trust can be restored if election offi ces are transparent about the process and any problems they encounter. One step in the right direction would be to require election offi ces to post online the accountability reports already required by law. Other reports, such as daily returns, should also be made readily available to the public.

Require fi rst-time voters who don’t provide a matching drivers’ license or social security number on their registration form to appear in person. To address the security loophole exploited by Duncan the dog, fi rst-time registrants who don’t have a drivers’ license or social security number, or who provide a number that doesn’t match the drivers’ license or Social Security databases, should be required to appear in person at the auditor’s offi ce to activate their voter registration. Further, they should be required to show a photo ID or two forms of non-photo ID. This would affect only a small universe of people, would prevent dogs from registering, and would make it easier for election workers to catch registration fraud like that perpetrated by ACORN workers in 2006.

Require a unique voter ID number on mail ballots. The inherent insecurity of mail ballots and the high failure rate of signature verifi cation make it imperative to enact new security measures on mail ballots. Requiring voters to write their drivers’ license or voter ID number under the security fl ap on the ballot envelope is one way to add a second check on the voter’s identity, thus making it harder to intentionally or accidentally cast an illegal ballot. Any non-matching number would be treated like a ballot with a wrong or missing signature. To maintain security, the voter ID numbers would be exempt from public disclosure.

Other election reforms that would improve security and accuracy:• Require voters to use their legal name to register to vote.• Require auditors to verify residential addresses.• Require felons to show proof their right to vote has been restored.• Require witnesses on a ballot to identify themselves.• Encourage reporting of vote fraud to law enforcement.

PUBLIC RECORDS REFORMSCreate an independent public records ombudsman. Open records experts often

express frustration with the Public Records Act because it doesn’t provide “a level playing fi eld” for citizens. If a state agency or city wants to hide records, it can use loopholes in the law and millions of taxpayer dollars to stymie the request. A citizen’s only recourse is to fi le an expensive lawsuit to get the records and hope a judge agrees with him. If Washington is really serious about openness and transparency, it needs an independent government authority that can advise citizens and can enforce the law against reluctant agencies. A public records advocate and clearinghouse within the state auditor’s offi ce, for example, would give citizens someone to turn to for clarifi cation and guidance and, if necessary, for enforcement of the laws.

Agencies and government offi cials need to be held accountable for violations of the public records and public meetings laws. Otherwise, it’s only the taxpayers who pay. For example, King County fought a ten-year battle with Armen Yousoufi an, a citizen who requested public records in relation to the building of Qwest Field. Even though the court found that county offi cials were grossly negligent in withholding the records, it is the taxpayers who are still paying for the case. County offi cials should be held personally liable for any willful violations of the public records law. Government bodies should also be required to periodically make public the details and cost of any ongoing litigation involving a fi ght to keep government records secret.

REFERENDUM RIGHTS: EMERGENCY CLAUSE REFORMRequire bills with an emergency clause to pass with a two-thirds vote. Normally

every new law can be put to a vote of the people by running a referendum, but the Washington constitution provides an exception in cases where a law is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” Two bad state Supreme Court rulings have allowed legislators to slap this “emergency clause” on just about any bill they choose, no matter how urgent it actually is. Not surprisingly, legislators have taken advantage of that opportunity to protect controversial bills from being subject to a referendum. These sham emergencies are a blatant attempt to deny the people’s right of referendum. The courts have turned a blind eye to this abuse, so the only way to stop it is to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote for any bill that has an emergency clause.

2008 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK

C&G Citizenship & Governance

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET WATCH:Figuratively speaking, rain clouds are gathering on Washington’s economy. In Novem-ber, our state’s revenue forecast chief reported revenue projections for the combined 2005-07 and 2007-09 biennia have been reduced by $132.4 million.

Boom-bust economic cycles are pretty run-of-the-mill. Our state appears to be com-ing out of the boom phase, meaning lawmakers should be extra prudent with the supplementary budget this session.

Rainy Day accountEFF will be monitoring carefully our state’s newly-minted rainy day account. This

constitutional amendment requires one percent of general state revenues to be depos-ited into a protected budget account to mitigate budget cuts or tax increases during lean economic times. The account cannot be tapped without three-fi fths approval of the legislature except in special scenarios such as a catastrophic emergency.

As the real estate market continues to slow, stocking up funds for the soon-to-arrive rainy day is looking like a better idea all the time.

I-960Initiative 960 re-affi rms current law requiring two-thirds legislative approval for tax

increases, requires legislative approval of all fee increases, requires certain published information on tax-increasing bills and provides for non-binding advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.

Much to the chagrin of I-960 foes, the initiative passed by a wide margin in the November 2007 election.

EFF carefully will be scrutinizing legislative compliance with the initiative require-ments.

Performance AuditsPerformance audits are a means to ensure the wisest possible use of taxpayer dollars

and to decrease cynicism people have about their government. The State Auditor’s Offi ce has released several performance audits this year that

could result in hundreds of millions in taxpayer savings, if recommendations are fol-lowed.

Initiative 900 requires that the legislature consider these recommendations during the budget process. EFF will be watching the legislature this session to ensure that they do.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY:Transparency in government quickly has become a bi-partisan, nationwide move-

ment. Burgeoning efforts at both the state and federal level hold promise to bring more sunshine to government operations and to create a comprehensive and clear window into state expenditures. Laws that promote transparency and open govern-ment help ensure that government does not exceed its legitimate authority and that it is both accountable and responsive to the needs of the public.

WORKER RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT The Worker Right-To-Know Act requires public-sector unions in Washington to dis-close fi nancial information to their members. Currently, public-sector labor unions are not mandated to disclose that information even though they represent government workers and negotiate with the public’s agent—the government. This lack of trans-parency is uncharacteristic of the importance Washington traditionally places on dis-closure.

The public disclosure of labor union fi nances has existed in some form for nearly a half-century. Federal law requires private-sector unions to report expenditures of $5,000 or more. Thirteen states also have some form of union fi nancial disclosure. Laws range from the right of union members to view their organization’s books to the fi ling of annual expenditure and audit reports.

Workers and the public should know what is being done with their money on their behalf in Washington. The act would require public-sector labor unions act to fi le fi nancial reports with the Public Employment Relations Commission. These reports would disclose union assets, liabilities, salaries, expenditures of $1,500 or more, dues amounts, direct or indirect political spending and any possible confl icts of interest for union offi cers or staff.

According to a recent poll, 95 percent of teachers surveyed in Washington support their right to know what the union is doing on their behalf. A 2004 Zogby survey found 71 percent of union members believe unions should be required to give an accounting of their fi nances to deter corruption.

Washington’s workforce is more educated, empowered, and familiar with fi nancial data and transactions than at any time in the state’s history. Union members need union fi nancial information to make wise decisions about themselves, their careers and their families. The public also has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

OPENING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Since 1971, the public has had the right to attend government meetings, ensuring no

hint of secrecy surrounds public decisions. But collective bargaining sessions between public employee unions and the state government are not subject to those standards.

Eleven states already have decided otherwise and have opened the collective bargaining process to the public. Some require all phases of the process to be open, while others simply require minutes and documents to be available upon request.

Because these sessions involve publicly funded state negotiators and legislative approval, the public should have access to this information. If meetings are not opened to the public, documents of the sessions should at least be available to the public once negotiations have concluded. This openness and increased oversight help ensure that government is using taxpayer money effectively.

2008 L E G I S L A T I V E O U T L O O K

2008 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK

EPC Economic Policy Center

2008 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK

LPC Labor Policy Center

Continued on page 8 Continued on page 9

8 LIVING LIBERTY

by Bob Williams2007 Index of worker freedom

T

om

he details of history seem to settle with time. What once were vast, complicated issues now

coalesce around themes in a time-honored and well-known plotline of the past. “Worker freedom,” we were told at the beginning of the labor movement in the late nineteenth century, was secured by individual laborers banding together to procure their rights as a collective. Time, replete with irony, has told a differ-ent tale.

Ever since the beginning of our country, our social and political consciousness has debated the proper balance of three foundational principles—liberty, equality, and democracy. These values, of course, were not original to our Founding Fathers. However, those minds, so keenly aware of the pitfalls of power that have existed throughout human history, institutionalized a conversation about priorities and balance.

These three values have transcended generations of Americans, each principle vying for dominance over the other two. Context determines the extent to which one of these values overshadows—or even overpowers —the other two. Any movement, any legislation, any progress comes with trade-offs. Interestingly enough, the idyllic drive toward the “worker freedom” of yesteryear seems to have come at the expense of individual liberty.

Even after all these years, the individual is still the unit of analysis in American government. In other words, we are all accountable for our own individual actions. We have inherent individual rights. We each have the right to vote for our leaders. Even the formation of labor unions is predicated on an affected employee’s right to vote his or her conscience on a secret ballot, regardless of the “solidarity” claims of labor unions.

Although unions claim to secure worker rights, union membership has been falling for more than 30 years. Nationwide, the number of union members is now at a record low. Over the last year, union density declined in 31 states. Today only 12 percent of workers

are members of a union, down from 35 percent in the 1950s. In private industries, only 7 percent of workers are unionized.

The only room now for labor union growth is in the public sector. Unlike the private sector, the public sector operates according to a set of rules that does not include competition, effi ciency, or scarcity. Government lacks competition. While private unionized industries are subject to the corrective forces of the market, there is little incentive for union negotiators to bear in mind the government’s bottom line.

The emergence of these public-sector unions has serious consequences for the scope, cost, and size of government. Unlike a private business that has limited resources to cover its costs, government can increase its resources by raising taxes. Paying an ineffi cient bureaucracy with taxpayer money is generally easier than fi xing the problems of ineffi ciency.

Public-sector unions leverage their secure source of income and collective bargaining authority to drive a three-pronged strategy to maintain and expand their power. They elect politicians and government offi cials through campaign support, create policies to maintain and expand union power and infl uence, and lobby favorable offi cials to implement the policies.

Public-sector labor unions now collectively bargain for higher wages for state and localgovernment workers,

Ed note: EFF President Bob Williams wrote the Foreward to the fi rst ever national report card on worker freedom on a state-by-state basis. “Index of Worker Freedom” was released in early December at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

some of whom resent having to pay union dues or agency

fees just to keep their jobs. Unions represent 60.2 percent of

government workers in my home state of Washington, compared to

13.2 percent in private industries. Since government does not need to

adjust quickly to changes in market forces and can coercively increase its income through tax increases, unions have found the public sector to have deeper pockets than the private sector.

This disregard for public resources is exactly why state policymakers should seriously evaluate the data and conclusions in this study. While most private-sector labor policy is guided by federal law, public-sector unions are governed by the states. If state lawmakers are interested in maintaining economic vitality—especially in a market characterized by regional and international competition—they must address the role of public-sector labor unions and rights of employees, including union members.

State and local elected offi cials should think critically about their state’s economic direction. States are in a critical position to answer tough questions about the role of public-sector unions, minimum wages, pensions, right-to-work laws, and paycheck protection. Leaders should evaluate how their state compares to others on these issues. Are they providing a good business climate for proprietors and employees? Are government regulations and taxation choking businesses? People, businesses, jobs, and potential sources of state revenue can easily move to a more economically viable state. Labor policies in general and worker freedom in particular contribute signifi cantly to this climate.

Worker freedom today must be about empowering the individual. The slogans of the past have less signifi cance in today’s economically diverse society. Unionism in the private sector is a mere shadow of its former self, and public-sector unionism exists because of a captive audience, political deals, and deep pockets. The labor movement’s version of “worker freedom” has emphasized equality at the expense of liberty.

In order for our states and country to continue to prosper and progress, our individual liberties must be preserved. Careful examination of this study is one of the fi rst steps our leaders should take in an effort to regain the personal freedoms lost through past propaganda.

Searchable budget websiteNineteen states have passed, or are now working

on, legislative or administrative reforms that would hand the public tools to examine government spend-ing. Missouri recently created a website chronicling state expenditures to serve as “a single point of ref-erence [for citizens] to review how their money is being spent.” The site offers a user-friendly search engine that allows Missourians to browse state pur-chases of goods and services by agency, contract, vendor or category.

EFF created model legislation for a “Taxpayer Transparency Act” in Washington that would cre-ate a similar searchable website in our state. The legislation would direct the Offi ce of Financial Management to create and maintain a searchable budget database detailing how state tax dollars are spent and what performance results are achieved for those expenditures. The fi scal information needed to create a state searchable budget database should already be maintained by the Offi ce of Financial Management.

The requirement that OFM list the performance expec-tations and results for each expenditure takes this legisla-tion one step further than budget transparency legislation in other states. This is because of our belief that govern-ment, like businesses, does best when the spotlight is on outcomes rather than inputs. If the focus remains on what is paid for a service, rather than what taxpayers got out of a service, then the reason for the expenditure to begin with is lost.

Though a searchable budget database is not a cure-all for questionable government spending, it is a necessary part of the cure and would make budget transparency one click away for taxpayers.

Budget timeoutDuring the 2007 session, Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20)

failed to break through the legislative cloud cover with HB 1834, which would have created a fi ve day timeout before a budget could be voted on after its introduction. This common-sense reform would have ensured that law-makers, media and the public have the time necessary to actually read the hundred-plus page appropriation bills

before they are voted on in the legislature. Unfortu-nately, the bill did not even receive a public hearing.

EFF created model legislation to prohibit hearings or votes on appropriation or revenue related bills until 72 hours after the bill’s public introduction. The idea behind the model legislation was to increase public participation in the legislative process and to improve the quality of proposed legislation by allow-ing time for detailed review. As stated directly in the model language, “The opportunity for a detailed review by the public prior to hearings or votes on legislation helps increase public trust in government and enhances respect for the Legislature by ensur-ing that its operation is conducted with the openness, order and dignity befi tting Washington state.”

As is the case with other activities of government, the public does not yield its sovereignty to budget committees and must have the opportunity to review and comment on the details of the budget before the fi nal vote.

EPC Outlook Continued from page 7 . . .

www.workerfreedom.org

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

n the fi rst national report card on worker freedom, the Alliance

for Worker Freedom gave Washing-ton state a C+ for scoring four out of a possible 10 points. Washing-ton state’s positive scores resulted from its paycheck protection law (al-though it was effectively eviscerat-ed by the Legislature last year), the defi ned contribution pension options the state offers its public employees, the below average workers compensation premiums and the above average entrepreneurial activity. The state failed, however, in six other important areas.

Released on December 6, 2007, the Index of Worker Freedom is the fi rst state-by-state analysis of labor policy and statistical data regarding worker freedom. The study also gives state policy makers, citizens and business leaders a new tool to evaluate the health of the workplace and how existing worker freedoms can be built upon.

The states that topped the list were Utah (A), Colorado (A-), Idaho (A-), Mississippi (A-), and South Carolina (A-).

Of particular note, the study found that population growth directly correlated with the degree of worker freedom afforded. Each of the top-fi ve states on the index has a high population growth (which directly correlates to budget growth). Further, the states with high population growth and a high score on the Index have low union density rates.

The inverse is true. States with low population growth rates have very little worker freedom and union density rates even double the national rate. The states given an “F” include Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Hawaii and Connecticut.

But the correlation does not beg the question of whether the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken. Low population growth is a symptom of stagnant economic activity caused by regressive economic policies, including labor policies. Similarly high union density is the result of repressive policies giving Big Labor an artifi cial advantage in public and private workplaces.

Washington state failed to make the grade in the ma-jority of the categories. Washington’s minimum and prevailing wage laws are signifi cantly above the na-

tional average. Despite the good intentions of those who advocate minimum wage laws, they fail to comprehend their tragic trickledown effect. Minimum wage laws in-crease unemployment and infl ation while reducing the purchasing power of the working class. Business own-ers are forced to divvy their payroll budget into larger pieces, preventing them from hiring as many workers as they need. As such, existing employees become over-worked and those who need jobs to support their fami-lies remain unemployed.

Prevailing wage laws depress the economy for the same reason, but the title also is a misnomer. Prevailing wages, which must be paid by all employers competing for state contracts, are not the average wage paid to a specifi c class of workers in a community. Rather, they tend to refl ect the wages union shops receive. Many state governments conduct voluntary surveys to determine the wage that “prevails” for specifi c job classifi cations in a community. Unionized contractors, whose primary source of business is from public contracts, have an incentive to respond to these surveys because the more non-union contractors are forced to pay employees, the

more competitive union contractors become and the more likely it is they will win the contracts.

If Washington state were to eliminate prevailing wage laws, the state would see an increase in competition for public contracts, foster thousands of new jobs and save millions of dollars in construction costs.

The union density in Washington state is also higher than the national average. In the public sector, this is partly a result of legislation passed over the past few years permitting a rash of intensive, and often oppressive, union organizing drives. Following the passage of the Personnel Service Reform Act of 2002, permitting public employee collective bargaining, the state’s largest public employee union dropped a “union security” clause into the fi rst contract negotiated with the state. The clause forced all covered employees to pay dues or fees, or lose their jobs. The state tried to give its employees a voice in the matter by ensuring that all affected employees would get to vote on the contract. The union agreed, but then thumbed its nose at the state and denied all nonunion members a vote. A revocation of the collective bargaining law and implementation of a right to work law would go a long way in protecting the autonomy of our state’s public servants.

In concluding his introduction to the Index of Worker Freedom, EFF President Bob Williams noted, “In order for our states and country to continue to prosper and progress, our individual liberties must be preserved. Careful examination of this study is one of the fi rst steps our leaders should take in an effort to regain the personal freedoms lost through past propaganda.”

by Ryan BedfordIndex of Worker Freedom: Washington state gets a C+

I

LIMITING AGENCY FEESWashington state used to require labor unions to

get permission from nonmember employees before using their dues for political activity. In 2007, the state legislature preemptively responded to litiga-tion before the U.S. Supreme Court by passing HB 2079. The bill created a refund process that effec-tively eliminated the need for unions to get permis-sion for political spending.

The new refund process does not protect the First Amendment rights of nonmember employees as well as the older opt-in process. The best solution is to limit agency fees paid by nonmembers to the portion of union expenditures for activities germane to collective bargaining. Doing so would ensure that nonmembers pay only for the union’s collective bargaining activities, not political spending.

NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS Labor unions want to gag employers who receive

contracts, subsidies or tax exemptions from the state. Normally, if an employee expresses interest

in organizing a union, the employer cannot stop the movement. However, the employer is allowed to educate employees about how such a decision could affect the workplace.

If unions had their way, however, state law would halt the employer’s liberty to speak. Unions believe such liberty allows intimidation, and they frame the debate around mistreatment of workers. Unions would prefer to extend these “protections” to all workers in Washington state. Federal law, however, already protects the rights of workers to unionize. These neutrality agreements are simply redundant.

CARD CHECK Organized labor will likely continue its push to allow

public-sector workers to form unions simply by signing intent cards rather than through a secret ballot election. Federal law allows card check to signal private-sector workers’ desire to hold an election, but card check cannot replace the election.

Washington already allows card check drives for public employees, but sets the threshold at 70 percent of a bargaining unit. The card check process allows

workers to be coerced into forming a union rather than having the freedom to vote their conscience. Any attempt to promote card check or lower the 70 percent threshold fl ies in the face of the liberties of public employees.

PREVAILING WAGE Unions have signaled their desire to extend

prevailing wage to more government-funded projects, including public-private partnerships. Prevailing wages usually apply to government-sponsored capital projects. Public projects should protect and promote local jobs at wage rates that are common for that area, according to the Great Depression-era rationale behind federal and state prevailing wage laws.

Requirements for taxpayer-funded projects to use prevailing wages—which are usually higher than free-market wages and roughly correspond to union wage rates—raise project costs, but do not deliver a better quality product. Expansion of infl ated wages and increased costs to taxpayers burdens the free market and increases government regulations and economic entanglements.

LPC Outlook Continued from page 7 . . .

“ A revocation of the collective bargaining law and implementation of a right to work law would go a long way in protecting the autonomy of our state’s public servants.”

10 LIVING LIBERTY

was an exciting year for EFF! The advancements we made toward our

goals are only possible because of investors who believe in the mission and vision of EFF. To all of you who joined with us, thank you! To those of you who are still evaluating your commitment to EFF, we ask you to examine our efforts and agree that EFF is worthy of your investment.

All of our work is driven by our mission and our vision. Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government. Our vision—which guides our activities with a long-term focus—is that by working and building coalitions with others, we envision a day when the majority of Washingtonians understand, adopt and cherish the principles from which freedom is derived; thereby limiting government’s reach and building a state where opportunity, responsible self-governance and free markets fl ourish.

These are our guiding principles, crafted during those early days in 1991 when the Evergreen Freedom Foundation began behind the efforts of a handful of individuals operating out of a home basement. Although resources were limited, the passion and dedication to the advancement of personal responsibility and accountable government kept the organization thriving.

Since that time, EFF has grown from 2 part-time staff to 26 staff and from a fi rst year budget of $47,087 to $2,200,000 in 2007. We are governed by a 17-member Board of Trustees that oversees our fi scal and policy decisions. And our 20 volunteers assist with activities ranging from mailing to meeting with legislators.

However, it is our membership that is our strength. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation counts 4,500 members state-wide. Our members are our combined voice. It is our strong membership that cause lawmakers in Olympia stand up and take notice.

We continually are signing up new members and, toward that effort, we reached more than 65 million

people through electronic and print media in 2007 in Washington state and nationwide.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation has the largest membership of any state-based think tank in the United States. Free-market think tanks from across the nation emulate models developed at EFF, and our staff is asked to present at conferences and meetings across the nation. We have built and maintained a reputation for being fi nancially responsible.

The resources we raise each year come from a combination of foundations (31%), corporations (3%)

and individuals (66%). We do not accept any public funding, nor do we use any grant funds for lobbying endeavors.

We experienced major victories in each of our policy centers in 2007: the initiation of our Citizen Action Network, completion of a media studio, two budget transparency bills introduced to the legislature, model legislation adopted by the top national legislative coalition and a 9-0 victory in our U.S. Supreme Court case that championed the rights of union employees to protect their paychecks and free speech rights against union bosses’ political coercion.

Our obsession for accuracy has gained the respect of allies and opponents alike. The Tacoma News Tribune said last year, “The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has long been a thorn in Democrats’ sides, one that several of the party’s members at the state Capitol aim to pluck out this year.”

There is still much to accomplish and EFF is poised to take calculated action in 2008 to continue advancing our

mission of free-markets, individual responsibility and accountable government. Our strength lies in our staff, members, coalition partners, volunteers, and our determination to execute a well-crafted plan.

As we look forward to 2008, our major objectives include: • Continuing to replicate our successes in other states

to advance voluntary unionism by working toward enacting “free agency” bargaining based on the New Zealand model.

• Seeking to restore standards where only qualifi ed citizens can vote, and where votes are counted accurately and equally in a transparent process.

• Working to increase transparency in public records.• Building our Citizen Action Network that educates,

equips and empowers Washingtonians to champion their rights and fulfi ll their duties as citizens in a free society.

• Continuing to focus on state budgeting built on core functions of government, with performance-based evaluations and transparency to citizens.

• Identifying votes on bills that impact our mission throughout the legislative session and create a report card after session grading legislators based on those votes.

• Producing a new fi lm focusing on what tomorrow’s schools will look like if options are made available to everyone. The new fi lm, America’s New Schoolhouse, will build upon the lessons learned from Flunked!, our fi lm that will be released in early 2008.

We can’t achieve our objectives without the investment and support of individuals, companies and foundations that believe in our vision. We ask you to examine our goals and objectives for 2008. Consider joining with us. It’s our opportunity to preserve freedom for generations to come.

by Erin GeorgeInvest in EFF

2007

hat is happening in Las Vegas is happening all over the country, and it is ugly.

In October, the Nevada State Education Association’s (NSEA) Board of Directors voted unanimously to support a ballot initiative to increase the state’s gaming tax, taking additional funds away from the private sector and dumping them into a government bureaucracy. Not even the sacred art of gambling is safe from union greed.

That comes on top of efforts all over the United States to limit school choice and mandate higher spending – all to the advantage of the unions, not of children.

The proposed initiative will take an additional 3 percent away from the gaming industry and tack it on to the current tax, raising that tax from 6.75 percent to 9.75 percent. The NSEA claims the “revenue generated by this tax would go directly to public K-12 education in Nevada to improve the professional lives of all educators and students.”

If enough signatures are gathered, voters will be asked to approve the increase not once, but twice. Since the initiative calls for a constitutional amendment, the initial popular vote will take place in November 2008. If successful the measure will appear on the ballot again in November 2010.

In 2004 and 2006, Nevada residents amended the state Constitution to require the Nevada Legislature to fund public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 before funding any other part of the state budget. Apparently, that’s not enough. The unions are back at the public trough.

The arguments are as predictable as they are stale. The NSEA, and its highly liberal parent organization, the National Education Association (NEA), believe lawmakers need to spend more money on public education to fi x its lackluster performance, reduce class sizes and pay teachers better.

However there is not a single study—not one—that can confi rm a correlation between lower class sizes and academic success. More money means nothing. It might sound logical, but there’s no proof.

The real agenda here is to reduce class sizes so that more teachers have to be hired who will be paying union dues to their bosses. That’s it.

Union bosses frequently use the innocent faces of children as pawns to advance their socialist agendas. They attempt to justify their positions by claiming they’re, “doing this for the children” or more money is needed to improve “our students’ learning conditions.”

Don’t believe it.Union bosses don’t like trickle-down economics, but

they’re all for it when it comes to money spent on your children’s education. Throwing more money in the direction of public education will benefi t rank-and-fi le union members before impacting the children. Funding left over after increases to administration, school infrastructure and teacher salaries and benefi ts might fi nally trickle down and impact the kids. In other words, the kids get the crumbs when what they really need is an education system that serves them and not the unions.

“There is nothing more important than increasing your salary, benefi ts, and improving your working

conditions and our students’ learning conditions,” said NSEA President Lynn Warne, in a recent post on the union’s website. “We have chosen to stand to make a difference and we will not quietly submit to the idea that there is nothing we can do.”

Did you notice she put the children second? Again?

NEA and NSEA union bosses are fi lling their bank accounts by exploiting your children under the guise of improving education.

Nevadans cannot fi x the problems facing public education by simply dumping more money into it. Additional funding is only a “Band Aid” fi x for the real problem facing education in Nevada.

Protecting the mission of education is more important than protecting the institution. Nevada can’t continue just to throw money at educational problems and hope they go away.

It won’t work.Union bosses are gambling with the education of

children. They’re betting nobody will notice. Odds are their plans won’t work. Instead of sticking it to taxpayers, the better bet is to embrace common sense education reforms like school choice and merit-based pay, while promoting a culture that values learning.

Ryan Harriman is the coalitions manager & labor policy analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, and a Policy Fellow with the Nevada Policy Research Institute. He can be reached at rharriman@effwa.org

by Ryan HarrimanTeachers Union gambling with education by pushing tax increase

W

“ Evergreen Freedom Foundation has the largest membership of any state-based think tank in the United States.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

Yes, I WANT TO INVEST IN THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Dear Friend of EFF,

While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work.

Cordially,

Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confi rmation letter for your records.

Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!

Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each monthuntil further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF.

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check)

Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip)

Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date: 1st 10th 20th

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

The high court also ruled that the Legislature was not out of bounds when it applied the 2006 amendment retroactively. The court, citing case law, allowed the Legislature the power to pass legislation retroactively, barring a constitutional limitation, if “the legislature so intended” or the action is “curative.” The 2006 legislation was considered curative.

Taking the reasoning one step further, the court recognized that one legislature “cannot enact a statute that prevents a future legislature from exercising its law-making power.” The court found that voters have an “expectation” rather than a “right” to approve taxes in excess of the expenditure limit.

“So our rights are reduced to mere expectations now?” Bob Williams asked. “It was our right to vote on the 2005 tax increases. That was the law. The Legislature broke that law, but the court is giving it a pass.”

The court declined to reach any decision regarding other issues raised at the trial court level, including

the constitutionality of vot-er-approved limits and the extent that legislative privi-lege can be used in order to shield legislative actions from public view.

Four justices wrote concur-ring opinions. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Tom Chambers seemed to indicate their preference for striking down I-601 as un-constitutional. Justices Jim Johnson and Richard Sanders agreed with the court’s conclusion, but wrote to correct perceived inaccura-cies in Chambers’ concurrence.

Sanders challenged the majority claim that legislatures have plenary power to enact laws except as limited by state and federal constitutions. “The assertion seems to be based on an erroneous presumption that state

governments have inherent powers—a presumption that contradicts the basic premise of all American governance that all power resides in the people except insofar as it has been delegated to the government.”

Earlier in November, voters passed Initiative 960. While the I-601 court ruling had no direct effect on I-960, the willingness of some court members to discuss the constitutionality of

statutory voter-approved limits on tax increases raises questions about future court rulings on I-960.

The ruling reinforces the point that fi scal conservatives should not trust exclusively in initiatives. Electing fi scal conservatives to offi ce in all three branches of government is crucial.

Shell game continued from page 4 . . .

“So our rights are reduced to mere expectations now?” Bob Williams asked. “It was our right to vote on the 2005 tax

increases. That was the law. The Legislature broke that law, but the court is giving it a pass.”

12 LIVING LIBERTY

IN 2008

Everett—January 12, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: Snohomish County PUD, Training Center

Room 2C, 2320 California St, Everett, WA

Spokane—January 19, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: Super 8 Motel, Meeting Room A, 2020 N

Argonne Rd, Spokane Valley, WA

Bellingham—February 2, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: Quality Inn Baron Suites, Olympus Room, 100

E Kellogg Road, Bellingham, WA

Bellevue—February 23, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: South Bellevue Community Center, Classroom

1, 14509 SE Newport Way, Bellevue, WA

University of Washington—March 1, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: TBD

Port Orchard—March 8, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: TBD

Vancouver—March 22, 2008

First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)

Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(dinner provided)

Location: Vancouver Service Center (PUD Building), 1200

Fort Vancouver Way, Vancouver, WA

Schedule of CAN Classes for Winter, 2008

Please contact Juliana McMahan if you

wish to register for any of these classes

(JMcMahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482).

ur Washington State Constitution begins with a reminder that “All political power is inherent in

the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement of principle is meaningless if not put into practice. Here are a few tips for citizens who want to impact our 2008 Legislative Session.• First, remember Senate Minority Leader Everett

Dirkson’s (R-Ill.) admission: “When I feel the heat, I see the light.” A few months after the 2008 session, two-thirds of the Legislature will face the voters. Find out who is running for re-election, what cam-paigns are likely to be close and who the opposition candidates are. Information is power; be informed.

• When communicating with a legislator or staffer, always be courteous and concise. If you are asking them to do something specifi c, let them know up front what it is. If you have or know of a personal story, tell it. And tell them if you want a specifi c response or if you plan to contact them again to follow up.

• Make your voice heard directly. Meet with your legislators or testify at a committee hearing for or against legislation (it’s easier than you think). Just be prepared; know what you want to say, how you plan

by Trent England

You CAN be heard: How to make a differenceduring the legislative session

O to say it and bring copies of one or two helpful handouts (including your name and contact informa-tion).

• Letters to the Editor can be powerful, especially if they men-tion a legislator by name. Make sure your letter is accurate, brief, and clear. Send the legislator a copy of the published letter to be sure they see it.

• For your representatives’ contact information or to fi nd their websites, go to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.

• To fi nd out about specifi c legislation, check out www.washingtonvotes.org or http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/.

• For general information about the Legislature and the legislative process, the Legislative Information Center has a toll-free hotline, 1-800-562-6000, and an email, support@leg.wa.gov.

• Read EFF’s continuous news and analysis at www.LibertyLive.org.

• Join our Citizen Action Network at www.effwa.org/CAN/ApplyforCAN.html.

IN 2008

READING

THE FEDERALIST

T he Federalist Papers explains both the

reasons for and the workings of the

Constitution of the United States. It is “the

most powerful body of political thought

ever produced in America,” according to

historian Robert Middlekauff. For Americans

who believe in the enduring value of the

Constitution, The Federalist is an essential

resource and a guide.

During 2008, Living Liberty will present

monthly essays and encourages you to

read The Federalist with us.

February

Federalist No. 1: Introduction

March

Federalist Nos. 2–8: Importance of a union of

all the states

April

Federalist Nos. 9–14: The size of the union

and its economic conditions

May

Federalist Nos. 15–22: Defects of the Articles

of Confederation government

June

Federalist Nos. 23–36: Necessity of

“energetic” government

July

Federalist Nos. 37–40: The Constitutional

Convention and its detractors

August

Federalist Nos. 41–51: Controlling

government power

September

Federalist Nos. 52–61: The House of

Representatives

October

Federalist Nos. 62–66: The Senate

November

Federalist Nos. 67–77: The Executive

December

Federalist Nos. 78–83: The Judiciary

January 2009

Federalist Nos. 84–85: The lack of a bill of

rights and the conclusion