A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION �

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

FIND A LEADER 3 FIRES, FLOODS, AND HORSE RACES �0

LIVING LIBERTYJUNE 2007 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

BUDGETING �0� 9

SESSION SCOREC

ARD

2007 pg. 6

“Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire pulled a fast one . . .”–Wall Street Journal

overnor Christine Gregoire recently signed into law House Bill 2079, a bill crafted by the Washington Education Association that allows the union to spend non-member dues on politics without their permission.

This new law directly contradicts the spirit and objec-tive of Initiative 134, passed by 73 percent of the voters in 1992, which intended to protect teachers and other union workers from having their union dues used for politics against their will.

EFF argued continually that the bill was premature due to the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the law. The bill fails to correct any accounting problems and uses a flawed accounting system that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in two other union cases.

“Get Out of Jail Free” card for the WEAIgnoring EFF’s concerns, legislators inces-santly assured the public and media that HB 2079 would not affect the Supreme Court case. On the same day Gregoire signed the bill into law (literally minutes afterward), the union filed a supplemental brief with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to limit the applica-tion of Section 760 to past union actions and arguing that the law, as amended by HB 2079, should now be deemed constitutional.

As EFF Communications Director Booker Stallworth said, “HB 2079 was a virtual Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for the WEA. The sponsors who said the bill has nothing to do with the litigation were either lying or being used by their WEA puppet-masters.”

What Emergency?We have commended the governor on her recent veto action on the emergency clauses attached to several bills; she even noted that “Emergency clauses should be restricted to bills that address public emergencies,” when she stripped bills of these clauses.

But Gregoire showed her true colors by approving HB 2079’s emergency clause, which allows the bill to take effect immediately, while denying the people their constitutional right of referendum, due to the purported emergency.

When asked by an Olympian reporter why she approved HB 2079’s emergency clause, Gregoire stated, “Because [the union] asked me specifically that it not be vetoed because they continue to take money in and this will relieve the cloud, with the emergency clause in place. Rather than wait until some later date when from here ‘till there will be a cloud over what use they can make with the money.”

EFF Labor Policy Director Mike Reitz said, “Gover-nor Gregoire has shown that she believes that denying the people their constitutional rights in order to bail out

by Kristen Mercier

her union friends and contributors from legal penalties is an emergency.”

What Now?Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna and attorneys representing the teachers at the U.S. Supreme Court are filing a response to the union’s supplemen-tal brief. We expect to have a decision in the next five weeks, and we will send updates to EFF members and include the case’s conclusion in our next newsletter.

GGregoire Bails Out the Union

“On the same day Gre-goire signed the bill into law (literally minutes afterward), the union filed a supplemental brief with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to limit the appli-cation of Section 760 to past union actions and arguing that the law, as amended by HB 2079, should now be deemed constitutional.”

by Kristen Mercier

� LIVING LIBERTY

Out of the Box: Innovations in Education is a multi-

media production of the Evergreen Freedom Founda-

tion. Through film, radio and print, Out of the Box will

highlight outstanding programs in education that are

getting great results using innovative methods to bring

out the best in our kids. For More information, email

Steve at smaggi@effwa.org.

34

5689101112

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

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

VOLUME 17, Issue 6

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue3 LETTER FROM LYNN TO FIND A LEADER, LOOK INSIDE

4 DO YOU REMEMBER SPUTNIK? SCHOOL CHOICE HAS SAVED $444 MILLION WASL DELAY HIGHLIGHTS WHAT IS WRONG WITH WASHINGTON EDUCATION

5 HONOR THE VOTERS’ INTENTIONS ON PROPERTY TAXES TIM EYMAN: LEGISLATURE WRONG ON PROPERTY TAXES

6 LEGISLATIVE SCORECARD 8 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR READERS RESPOND TO POLICY PIECES WRITTEN BY EFF ANALYST AMBER GUNN

9 BUDGETING 101: BUILDING A BUDGET FROM THE GROUND UP

10 FIRES, FLOODS, AND HORSE RACES IGNORANCE OF VOTER FRAUD IS NO EXCUSE

11 I WOULD NORMALLY NOT ASK YOUR AGE, BUT...

12 HOW TO WRITE A THOUSAND DOLLAR LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Publisher:Booker Stallworth

Editor:Amber Gunn

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“It took 104 years for the state budget to reach $16.2 billion and only 14 years to double that and

reach $33.4 billion.”– Bob Williams

Coming Soon...Out of the Box

Feds In The Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American EducationBy Neal McClusky

“The over-riding value of Neal McCluskey’s work is that it shows that most federal educational programs are over-whelmingly useless, if not counter-productive.”

– Myron Lieberman, Chairman, Education Policy Institute

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

STo find a leader, look inside

ome people define leaders as ordinary people with extraordinary determination. There’s more to it

than that, but determination beyond the norm is cer-tainly a prerequisite.

Leaders seize the moment, but always with one eye on the horizon. They have vision for the necessary outcome of the task at hand. This is true for leaders of businesses, nations, communities and families. Obstacles are meant to be removed, and if required, they will risk comfort and even their lives. For good or ill, leaders leave lega-cies.

We are surrounded by people who tell us they are our leaders, but I wouldn’t follow most of them to the gro-cery store. These would-be leaders wax on about how hard everything is. Their vision is limited by Goliath-sized obstacles they cannot picture knocking out cold.

Real leaders see the end goal. They size up their oppo-sition in advance and build strategies accordingly. They prepare battle-ready teams. They surround themselves with extraordinary people.

As a young adult, Reagan and Thatcher stood out as turning-point leaders for me. Both came from unassum-ing backgrounds. Reagan came into office during the days of double-digit mortgage rates and raging stagfla-tion. People were angry and afraid. What had seemed like stable ground was shifting sand beneath our feet.

The role of government had expanded significantly after the Depression and through the 1960s Great Society programs. Politicians and bureaucrats regulated many key elements of economic activity as they attempted to make government responsible for a whole host of social, medical, scientific and educational services. Taxes were increased to pay for these services, enabling govern-ment officials to redistribute taxpayers’ wages as they thought best for the country.

For a time, this plan seemed to work. WWII was over, and the energy and brainpower that previously had been poured into the war was spent making America a land of innovation and rapidly increasing productivity. Wages started to increase. Entrepreneurs found profit-able opportunities.

By the time I was ready to strike out on my own, the chickens had come home to roost. Government was tak-ing too much money out of the economy in its attempt to manage prices, create jobs and eradicate social injustice. The cost of the big government programs was burgeon-ing. Regulations were stifling productivity. The result was stagflation: high inflation and significant job loss.

When President Reagan took the helm, nay saying intellectuals and angry politicians surrounded him. Dark clouds hovered, what with the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The public was down-right discouraged and more than a little frightened.

Reagan and his team pushed through tax and regula-tory reductions to limit government’s authority. After

a few years of real pain, the antidote worked and the economy prospered once again. Inflation was reduced significantly, and many new jobs were created by the private sector.

Things were worse across the pond in England, where owning a private business was mostly illegal. When Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister, Eng-land was experiencing massive strikes, high taxes, a heavily regulated economy and resultant high unem-ployment. Like Reagan, she believed in a more deregu-lated economy and lower tax rates. Also like Reagan, she and her advisors suffered great ridicule among the nation’s eggheads, politicians and social elites.

But Reagan and Thatcher were right. Both economies rebounded, especially in America where more regula-tory barriers were removed. These leaders hold their place in history because of their fierce determination to do what they knew was best for their respective coun-tries. They rallied the citizens around what most people instinctively knew was best for them, their families and their future.

About the same time, I became acquainted with Rea-gan and Thatcher I also was introduced to the Old Tes-tament story of Nehemiah. His leadership genius fasci-nated me.

Nehemiah was a cupbearer for the Persian King Artax-erxes, in the middle years of 400 B.C. This meant he protected one of the most powerful leaders in the world from death by poisoning and other diabolical deeds. He became a trusted advisor to the king.

But Nehemiah was the child of Jewish exiles, and much of his heart was attached to his homeland. He became deeply sorrowful over its broken-down condition, par-ticularly the city of Jerusalem. No doubt he tried to con-ceal his sorrow as he went about his day-to-day job of serving the king. It was potentially life-threatening for him not to keep his feelings to himself. But grievous heartbreak is not easily disguised.

It was Nehemiah’s nature to plan, and he must have had a vision for what could be rebuilt. Despite his heart-break, or maybe more aptly because of it, he began to fashion arrangements to rebuild the fallen city. From a normal perspective, carrying out such plans was highly unlikely—even dangerous.

To execute his plan, Nehemiah would have to ask the king for permission to leave his job. Persian resources would be required, and he would need the king’s politi-cal cover.

Then there was the condition of the war-torn city itself. It was little more than multiple heaps of rubble. Because of his experience negotiating around Persian politics and power plays, Nehemiah must have assumed he would face fierce turf wars with locals.

And he walked away from a prominent and lucrative job for an unknown period of time.

To make a short story even shorter, in 52 days the pro-tective bulwarks around the city had been restored. Six months later, the rest of the basic work was completed. This was despite Nehemiah being the object of gossip, ridicule and death threats.

Nehemiah led a team that accomplished an amazing amount of restoration in a short period of time against enormous obstacles. Certainly his careful pre-planning helped, as did his unwavering determination. His close connection to the seat of power didn’t hurt him either, but it could have. He took a risk with his position of influence.

One of Nehemiah’s chief winning strategies was his method of recruitment. To help rebuild the protective city wall, he assigned portions to the families whose homes and lives would be most affected by completion of that particular section. Then he taught them to hold both a sword and a trowel.

That’s a great lesson. A battle-ready team can be built from a band of unseasoned citizens if they understand what’s at stake for them personally.

Do you think, as a boy growing up in Persia, Nehe-miah knew what would unfold for him? No way! Do you think he ever envisioned himself as a great leader of a worthy cause? Highly unlikely. For years, he was a servant-leader in training, and much of what he learned came through observing powerful people and perform-ing numerous tasks excellently in his daily job. His heart, hands and head were ready when he was needed.

Study any significant turning point in history and you will find individuals who rose to the occasion, stared trouble right in the face, made difficult personal deci-sions and became unlikely heroes. You will also find that each was surrounded by dedicated teams of people who shared the leader’s vision and worked for its fruition.

Today most of us long for principled, courageous and visionary leaders. We perish without them. But we find that it’s easier to moan about a lack of leaders than to be one. It is more convenient to believe that it’s “somebody else’s business” to fix this mess than to sacrifice our own time and desires for the next generation.

We are called to be servant-leaders in our own homes and in our communities; to learn and perform our jobs excellently; to be ready when small and large things need to be done; to be willing to first hold a sword and trowel in our own hands, and then to train and lead oth-ers to do likewise.

So, while we naturally look around us for leaders (especially during the upcoming presidential campaign), we should first look inside ourselves. If we know what it means to be a leader, we’ll be able to recognize those who are cheap imitations. We’ll be able to know and support a real leader when he or she enters the scene. And who knows: It might be one of you we call “Presi-dent” or “Governor” someday.

“Today most of us long for principled, courageous and visionary leaders. We perish without them. But we find that it’s easier to moan about a lack of leaders than to be one.”

� LIVING LIBERTY

overnor Chris Gregoire delayed until 2013 a requirement that students pass the math and sci-

ence portions of the Washington exit exam, also known as the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning). The class of 2008 was scheduled to be the first group required to pass the reading, writing and math sections of the WASL in order to graduate. The science section of the test was set to become a require-ment for graduation in 2010.

Some key Democrats wanted to delay the reading and writing portions was well, but Governor Gregoire said “No.” The class of 2008 and future classes will have to pass those sections of the WASL in order to get their diplomas.

To date, nearly 85 percent of students have passed the reading and writing sections; however, only 56 per-cent have passed the math section, and only 38 percent passed science.

Gregoire said her actions should not be seen as a move away from high standards because all students deserve the opportunity to meet the high standards necessary to compete in the global marketplace.

Governor Gregoire said, “Our students cannot and will not be penalized because the state failed to do its job.” We agree. The problem is that the citizens of this state expect the existing school system to plan and deliver an outstanding education system. Our education leaders have failed, and they now have no choice but to hide their shame by chloroforming the verification tool that they themselves established.

The decision to delay the graduation requirement of the Math and Science WASL until 2013 is understand-able, in that the entire education bureaucracy wishes to avoid the embarrassment of over half of the graduating class failing to meet the requirement. The same bureau-cratic monopoly that developed both the math and sci-ence programs also devised the test to determine basic knowledge of each subject. The fact that so few students can pass it says something about both the test and the way the subject is being taught.

Over the next five years, it is important to measure the effectiveness of the WASL. Is this the best way to measure achievement? We must first examine what out-comes we want from our students. We must ask: “What is the core knowledge we expect from any high school graduate?” Next, an examination of the WASL is called for. There are many tests available today that can mea-sure math and science skills and all must be consid-ered.

It makes no sense to treat the problems with math with ineffectual, temporary solutions. Instead, a top-to-bot-tom look at the way we teach Math and Science in this state is urgently needed. Many have called for a change in the approach we take with these subjects, especially in Math. In fact, professors at the University of Washing-ton are looking for a different approach, as over 30 per-cent of their incoming freshmen need to take refresher courses. The number of students unprepared in math swells to over 50 percent in community colleges.

We think the Governor is correct when she says it is unfair to penalize our students because the state has failed them. Proper instruction and excellent curricu-lum are the best ways to solve this problem and prepare our students for the global marketplace of the twenty-first century.

e must return to the days of the cold war to see where this almost annual effort to reform schools

started. The year was 1957, not so long ago—well within the memory of many citizens today. The Soviet Union had just launched the first satellite into space, Sputnik I. Fear spread throughout the United States, with worries of bombs being launched from the sky and the possi-bility of America being unable to defend itself. Perhaps you remember the sense of crisis at the time from per-sonal experience; perhaps this story is just as much your own as the nation’s. If so, we would greatly appreciate your voice, your tale, your perspective for use in our re-sources.

During that time, people were asking, “How is it possible that the Soviet Union could be ahead of us in space?” In reality, the Soviet Union was militarily much weaker than the United States, but that did not quiet Americans’ concerns. Attention turned to our education system. Why were we lacking in science and technological knowledge?

Critics argued that students in the Soviet Union were drilled in mathematics and were highly advanced in sciences. Meanwhile, in the United States, businesses spent more money on advertising ($6.5 billion) than was invested into our schools ($5 billion). It became very apparent that without a focus on education the United

States would quickly be surpassed in technology. This imminent failure posed a significant a national security threat.

Congress declared an educational emergency and passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which started programs to help students excel. These programs included: Graduate fellowships in areas from hard sciences to foreign language; advanced language, foreign area studies, and scientific research centers; and government funding for higher education, local school college counselors, and student loans.

Since that time, each decade seems to bring a new crisis with the same proposed solutions: smaller class sizes, more emphasis on math and science, and, of course, more money. A lot more money. As we are aware, we are still in the same boat as we were in the days of Sputnik. It’s time to look for new solutions.

We will be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Sputnik and we would like to hear from you. If you are interested in contributing your stories about the space race, Sputnik, and the education system at the time, please e-mail Steve Maggi, Education Reform Director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation at smaggi@effwa.org or call (360) 956-3482.

NDIANAPOLIS—A landmark new study finds that school choice programs through-

out the country generated nearly $444 million in net savings to state and local budgets from 1990 to 2006. Contrary to opponents’ predictions, the analysis also finds that instructional spending per student has consistently gone up in all affected public school districts and states.

“School choice saves. It saves children, and now we have empirical evidence that it saves money,” said Robert Enlow, executive director and COO of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. “In the face of $444 million in savings, another excuse to deny children a quality education has vanished before our eyes.”

Released by the Friedman Foundation, “Education by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006” provides the first comprehensive analysis of how the nation’s school choice programs have affected state and public school districts. Of the 12 voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs that began operations before 2006, every program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce substantial savings. Seven more programs have been created since 2006.

“Programs giving parents freedom to choose in their child’s education are growing rapidly in number and size,” said Dr. Susan Aud, author of the study and a Friedman Foundation senior fellow. “And a program’s fiscal impact has become an important political issue. This brings empirical evidence to that debate.”

For years, opponents have claimed that school choice reduces spending in public schools. Yet the study’s analysis of the states and school districts where school

choice is available finds that this is not the case. Instructional spending in areas affected by school choice has uniformly increased.

“Opponents of educational freedom will find it tougher to bend the truth. Our research adheres to the highest standards of scientific rigor,” said Enlow. “We’ve seen seven school choice programs start in just the last year because evidence of the benefits are growing just as rapidly.”

The Friedman Foundation has provided analysis to many states on the fiscal effect of proposed school choice measures. Consistently, the studies—for states like Arizona, New Hampshire, Utah, Virginia, Minnesota and Kentucky—point to substantial savings.

by Steven MaggiDo you remember Sputnik?

W

School choice has saved $444 million

I

New study analyzes fiscal impact of the nation’s school choice programs

by Steven Maggi

WASL Delay Highlights What Is Wrong With Washington Education

G

EDUCATIONNEWS

www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/research

The study can be downloaded at:

“...the first comprehensive analysis of how

the nation’s school choice

programs have affected state

and public school districts.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION �

ast month, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington heard oral arguments in the ongoing

legal battle over whether Washington voters have an IQ above or below that of a small hairy rodent.

Up for review is King County Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts’ decision that voters were confused in 2001 when they passed Initiative 747, which sought to limit annual increases in property tax revenue to 1 percent.

The history behind the initiative is complicated. Before Initiative 747 there was Initiative 722. Both were the work of anti-tax activist and initiative guru Tim Eyman. I-722 aimed to protect taxpayers by eliminating several tax increases and lowering a 6 percent lid on property tax increases to 2 percent.

Under the 6 percent cap, property taxes almost always increased by—surprise, surprise—6 percent. The increasing tax burden threatened homeowners, especially those living on fixed incomes or in areas with above-average increases in assessed value.

Taxpayers thought they had won when I-722 passed on November 7, 2000, but within a month the initiative was tied up in court. Plaintiffs asserted that I-722’s tax cuts and the property tax limit were separate subjects shoehorned together, thus violating the state Constitution (Article II, Section 19). Using this rationale, a judge would eventually throw out I-722.

During the court fight, Eyman and others decided that if government would challenge the people over the 2 percent limit, they would do even better. I-747 was

by Amber Gunn and Trent EnglandHonor the voters’ intentions on property taxes

born, copying the property tax provision from I-722 but dropping the limit even further, to 1 percent.

The Washington State Constitution requires that all legislation include the full text of any existing law that the legislation would change (Article II, Section 37). This created a dilemma for the drafters of I-722. Should they draft the law as an amendment to I-722, which had passed but was tied up in court, or amend the earlier law that would be in force if I-722 was thrown out? Either choice risked amending a law that was no longer valid.

Eyman and his backers anticipated this problem, and very clearly explained in the voters’ pamphlet that I-722 was being challenged in court, and presented both scenarios. If upheld, I-747 would reduce the cap from 2 percent to 1 percent; if I-747 were struck down, then the cap would be reduced from 6 percent to 1 percent.

The voters’ pamphlet and news coverage were clear. So were voters. I-747 passed in a landslide.

The one percent limit went into effect, forcing local governments to become better stewards of the people’s money. Nevertheless, some officials chafed at this limit on their power. Whitman County led a lawsuit to overturn I-747, claiming that because I-722 was eventually invalidated, I-747 violated the state Constitution by indicating that it lowered the limit from two percent to one percent instead of from six percent to one percent. Even the Tacoma News Tribune called this a “piddling technicality,” saying, “the plaintiffs’ argument is hypertechnical and borderline disingenuous.”

Judge Mary Roberts disagreed. Her opinion claimed “voters were misled as to the nature and content of the law to be amended, and the effect of the amendment upon it.” If voters had really understood, Judge Roberts’ opinion seems to suggest, they would not have been so harsh. Besides insulting the intelligence of Washington voters, her decision jeopardizes the people’s right of initiative.

A successful initiative campaign requires an almost year-long process that begins with drafting the legislation. According to Judge Roberts, once an initiative is written, a court or the legislature can void the initiative simply by changing whatever law it would amend. Such a change, even if merely technical or even grammatical, would render the initiative’s statement of current law inaccurate and make the whole initiative unconstitutional.

In the last legislative session, a number of attempts to weaken or even eliminate the people’s right of initiative failed. If Judge Roberts’ decision is not overturned by the state Supreme Court, a handful of judges will have succeeded where those legislators failed, ripping a gaping hole in the constitutional right of initiative.

The record of I-747 is clear. Voters intended to reduce the power of local governments to hold tax parties at the expense of taxpayers’ pocketbooks. Property taxes have spiraled out of control. A majority of voters recognized that and demanded that officials be held accountable to the same standard every child understands: Please ask before you take.

That’s how much higher the prop-erty taxes we all pay

would be if not for our 2001 initiative I-747. That’s how much taxpayers have saved so far. It passed by the wid-est margin of any initiative we’ve ever done (and we’ve done a lot). Voters overwhelmingly supported (58% yes, 42% no) Initiative 747 because it addressed a very real problem—our state’s crushing property tax burden.

Working class families and senior citizens on fixed incomes are ravaged by property taxes because, too often, their take-home pay increases don’t keep pace with the increases in their tax burden. I-747 helps every-one, but it especially helps those folks who struggle every month to make ends meet.

That’s what makes the lawsuit against I-747 so darn scary. Last year, a King County judge (Mary Roberts) issued an absolutely goofy ruling agreeing with anti-747 government lawyers who said that voters were “misled into voting for I-747.” I-747, she ruled, was just too darn confusing for voters to understand.

Poppycock. As the Wenatchee World opined recently: “Saying that voters didn’t know what they were doing when they approved I-747 is ludicrous.”

Oral arguments were heard before the State Supreme Court recently and their ruling is expected this fall. I’m confident the High Court will uphold Initiative 747’s 1 percent property tax limit, overturning Roberts’ ruling.

Still, a whole lot of legislators, many of them Demo-crats, promised in the last election that, if elected, they’d

renew I-747’s 1 percent limit legislatively. Despite a con-certed effort by Republicans to hold the Democrats to their promises, it didn’t happen; but how it didn’t happen shows how disingenuous their effort was from the beginning.

Here’s a recap of what happened during the legisla-tive session (provided by the Republican leader in the House):

On March 5, when Republicans moved to vote the bill [the one to renew I-747’s 1% limit] out of the Finance Committee, the Democrat chair-man said the bill was premature:

“Our side has not yet had time to have a con-versation on the bill. The bill has been declared necessary to implement the budget. We have lots of time on this bill. It is exempt from cutoff so a motion to this might be appropriate a later time. We are not yet ready to do this yet at this point.”

On April 10, when Republicans tried yet again to move the bill by pulling it to the floor, the Democrat Speaker Pro Tem indicated it was too late:

“House Bill 2403 does not fall within the enu-merated exceptions to the Wednesday March 14th deadline for consideration of bills in the house of origin, and may not be considered by this body under the terms of the cutoff resolu-tion.”

The actions of our Democrat colleagues are not consistent with what many of them have been telling the citizens about the need for tax relief. If you believe what they’ve been saying about property taxes, this should have been a slam dunk. Instead they defeated a motion to move the bill out of committee last month - say-ing it was too early - and denied our motion to take the measure up on the floor this week - saying it was too late.

This just shows that Olympia will never put the needs of the taxpayers above the wants of government.

I-747 is working. It’s been working for six years. Voters don’t want this initiative’s reasonable protections diluted or taken away.

We’re moving full steam ahead this year to protect taxpayers even more. The Taxpayer Pro-tection Initiative I-960 makes it tougher to raise taxes. It builds on the success of Initiative 601, approved by voters in 1993, which required two-thirds legislative approval for any tax increase. I-960 closes loopholes, limits the Legislature’s reckless overuse of the emergency clause to block a public vote on tax increases, and requires bet-ter and more accessible information on bills proposing higher taxes. According to the initiative’s intent section, “With this measure, the people intend to protect taxpay-ers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state govern-ment takes more of the people’s money.”

I-960 puts Olympia on a much shorter leash.Governor Gregoire has already come out against the

initiative. The Associated Press reports, “Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire said the handcuffs aren’t needed. ... The governor said the current system protects taxpayers just fine.”

If she doesn’t like it, it’s got to be good.We have until July 6 to raise the funds and gather the

signatures necessary to qualify this critically important taxpayer protection initiative for the ballot.

Tim Eyman is a co-sponsor of Initiative 960 and heads up Voters Want More Choices, a grassroots taxpayer protection organization. For more information on I-960 contact Tim at 425-493-8707 or visit www.VotersWant-MoreChoices.com.

by Tim EymanLegislature wrong on property taxes

$1.6 billion.

L

“I-747 is working. It’s been working for six years. Voters

don’t want this initiative’s reasonable protections diluted or taken away.”

� LIVING LIBERTY

Budget sustainability The legislature passed a budget that will result in a projected deficit.

Despite rhetoric from the governor and legislative leaders about the need to abide by the “Priorities of Government” model, the budgets submitted by Governor Gregoire, the House, and the Senate each exceeded the revenue forecast. The budget that was signed and adopted has been projected to result in deficits.

Budget performance The budget lacks performance indicators for billions of dollars spent.

An essential component of the “Priorities of Government” model is that elected officials move from spending money to purchasing results and outcomes. Unfortunately the 2007-09 state budget has billions of dollars in spending without performance indicators.

Protected emergency reserve A constitutional emergency reserve account amendment will be sent to the voters this fall.

A constitutional emergency reserve account (SJR 8206) is essential, because lawmakers have shown themselves incapable of budgeting responsibly without external savings and spending controls to assist them. With this reform, voters will be able to ensure that at least some protected funds are saved to help head off future draconian budget cuts or tax increases when the economy sours. Now taxpayers have the opportunity to vote in November to approve constitutional spending controls on our elected officials.

Budget accountability The legislature twisted the spending limit and failed to hold hearings on repeat audit findings.

In HB 1128, the 2007 supplemental budget, the legislature manipulated the spending limit in order to spend more tax dollars. The legislature also failed to hold hearings on state audit findings. Especially notable was the legislative disregard for the findings in the Medicaid and Department of Transportation audits, which both included several repeat findings.

Budget transparency The legislature failed even to hold hearings on proposals to increase budget transparency.

HB 2342, which would have allowed citizens to “Google” search the state budget, and HB 1834, which would have delayed votes on budget bills until they had been publicly available for five days, were not even given hearings.

Public Records Several measures that will strengthen records laws passed.

Attorney General Rob McKenna requested several bills that would strengthen the Public Records Act (PRA), and, to its credit, the legislature introduced and passed most of his proposals. The most important of these was SB 5435, which creates a “Sunshine Committee” to review the 300+ exemptions to the PRA currently on the books, and make recommendations on whether these exemptions are actually necessary. Minor changes to the PRA were made in HB 1445, including some excellent intent language that will be helpful in making the case for transparency. On the down side, several new exemptions were passed, including one (HB 1688) for documents related to the marketing of fruit and vegetables. One bill that died a deserving death was HB 2326, which would have exempted union bargaining notes from public disclosure.

Election Reform Bad bills nearly passed, security flaws were ignored.

Quite a few election-related bills were introduced in 2007, but few actually passed. That was a good thing, as most of the bills would have had a negative affect. Two of the worst were SB 5561, which would have allowed registration up to and on Election Day, and SB 5566, which would have concealed essential elements of election records that allow groups like EFF to find illegal voters. Both bills died at the last minute on the House floor. One bill that passed was HB 1528, allowing online voter registration. While the idea by itself isn’t terrible, the legislature gets a bad mark for passing it without giving any thought to improving the security of voter registration. Until Washington has some basic protections like proof of residency and citizenship, our registration system is going to remain fundamentally insecure. Several bills adding these protections were introduced, including HB 1774 (by Representative Hinkle), but they weren’t even given a committee hearing.

edited by Victor JoecksLegislativeSCORECARD

2 0 0 7 S e S S i o n

Fail.

Fail.

Pass.

Fail.

Fail.

Pass.

Fail.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION �

Campaign FinanceMany problematic bills were introduced, but none of them got very far.

This issue started out with a bang last fall, as Governor Gregoire announced her support for public financing of judicial campaigns. Her proposal was a reaction to the large amounts of money spent on Supreme Court races in the primary. The Public Disclosure Commission didn’t directly support the public financing scheme, but it did want to beef up contribution limits and disclosure requirements. Both proposals were introduced in the legislature. SB 5226 would have created public financing for judicial races, and HB 1714 would have added new contribution limits. Other related bills would have allowed public financing for local races (HB 1551 & SB 5278) or even all state races (HB 1360). All of these proposals were bad ideas, as public financing protects incumbents, hinders free speech and quickly becomes very expensive. Contribution limits also hinder free speech, and do little to increase public confidence. Full disclosure is the best safeguard for honest elections, and Washington already has a model disclosure law and system. Thankfully all these bills died in committee.

Initiative & Referendum Rights: While problematic bills didn’t pass, the legislature showed little regard for referendum rights.

Like campaign finance, many negative initiative measures were introduced with much talk of limitations, but most of the bills died in committee. The bills focused on adding restrictions to signature gathering such as licensing of gatherers (HB 2018), requiring gatherers to sign the back of petition forms (SB 5182), and increasing the filing fees (SB 5392). The most onerous proposal was HB 1087, prohibiting signature-gatherers from being paid per signature. Although marketed as a fraud-prevention measure, the real effect is to increase the cost of signatures greatly, thus making it harder to qualify initiatives. Similar measures have been found unconstitutional in other states. There was a great deal of public outcry over these measures, and while a couple made it out of committee, they went no further.

Referendum rights were not directly impacted by any bills, but indirectly through the widespread use of emergency clauses, which allow a bill to go immediately into effect and prevent a referendum. Several emergency clauses were attached to controversial bills of the kind that the people would want to vote on through a referendum, thus directly undermining the constitutional right. A constitutional fix was proposed (HJR 4218), but committee chair Representative Sam Hunt refused to bring it to a vote.

Simple Majority for School Levies The school levy elections should be held in November.

The legislature passed HJR 4204, which allows for a simple majority to approve school levies and eliminates the validation requirement.

The super-majority requirement was adopted in 1944 to protect property owners because school levies are funded by property tax. This fear is still valid today, unless levy elections are part of the general election in November, when the majority of voters are engaged in election politics.

Special elections are easy to influence when only a simple majority is required. Voter turnouts of only 15 to 20 percent make special election levies easy to pass. School boards have the funds and people available to politicize levies, making it

difficult for the entire electorate to become appropriately aware of the stakes. Also, the cost of a special election is high—so high, in fact, that county auditors are recommending cutting in half the available dates to hold these elections.

Education Budget The legislature continues to fund schools without increasing accountability.

One of the great myths about education is that public schools are in crisis because they are under-funded. Per pupil spending has grown steadily for 50 years. In the early 1950s, public schools spent a total of about $2,000 per student in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars. Today, according to the Office of Public Instruction, average per-pupil spending is over $10,400 in the state of Washington.

While it is true that the current system is, at best, inefficient, throwing more money at it certainly is not the way to repair it. We need to consider first what we want to achieve before we determine how to fund it. There are too few incentives that reward quantitative results and too few penalties for failed efforts. To add additional funds without major changes does not, in any way, ensure that those dollars will be spent in ways that improve student learning.

WASL Delay A delay in the test does not fix the problem.

Governor Gregoire says “Our students cannot and will not be penalized because the state failed to do its job.” We agree. The problem is that the citizens of this state expect the existing school system to plan and deliver an outstanding education system. Our education leaders have failed and they now have no choice but to hide their shame by chloroforming the verification tool that they themselves established.

The decision to delay the graduation requirement of the Math and Science WASL until 2013 is understandable, in that the entire education bureaucracy wishes to avoid the embarrassment of over half of the graduating class failing to meet the requirement. The same bureaucratic monopoly that developed both the math and science programs also devised the test to assess basic knowledge of each subject. The fact that so few students can pass it says something about both the test and the way the subject is being taught.

Performance Pay Performance pay was talked about, but not delivered.

Washington Learns promised that efforts would be made to include “performance pay” for teachers in this upcoming session. That did not happen. In fact, “performance pay” was mentioned in a couple of bills, but then was stripped out of the bills before they went to the governor. It is true that a bonus for National Board Certification for teachers was passed; however, we feel that this is not performance pay. There is no data that shows a relationship between teacher certification and student progress. It is time that we reward good teachers who get results in the classroom.

Pass.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

� LIVING LIBERTY

Letters TO The ediTOr

Dear EFF:

Amber Gunn’s article, April 2007, regarding Costco challenging the State of Washington’s control of liquor distributions is useful as a sort of academic exercise, I suppose. But the reality is that society has never been able to afford the harm that comes from alcohol abuse, and that alcoholism was at its lowest during Prohibition. Shattered families, birth disabilities, child abuse and neglect, suicides, homicides, sexual crimes, traffic deaths and broken lives are too high a price to pay for the easy availability of alcohol. So if the state having a monopoly keeps prices higher and demand is therefore reduced, so much the better.

I always thought that the foundation of EFF was built on bedrock morality. I didn’t expect to be reading “Living Libertarianism.”

Sincerely, Paul Unger

Ms. Gunn, You state in your commentary on early release that a “debacle could have been fixed this session if lawmak-ers had applied the Priorities of Government process to the budget.”

In fact, this year, as every year, we did use the Priorities of Government process, which you would have know if you had bothered to check our website or speak to your colleague Jason Mercier, with whom I had at least a few email exchanges while the POG process was going on.

The fact that the priorities determined by that process are not exactly as you would have liked does not mean that the process did not occur.

The final 2007-09 POG report is available here: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/pog/default.htm Please check your facts in the future. Best,Anne Anne MartensCommunications DirectorOffice of Financial Management

Ms. Martens, Realizing that public safety is one of the almost uni-versally accepted priorities of good government, we believe a budget that fails to provide adequately for the housing of convicted criminals indicates a failure to prioritize resources. If, however, you are saying that public safety is the lowest priority of Governor Gre-goire and the legislature, as indicated in the failure to fund first, I would agree that our priorities differ from those of governor.

Please review the link you sent me http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/pog/default.htm.

Subject: “Early Release” Essay Dodges The Real Reason For Prison Overcrowding

Amber: I read your column in today’s P-I with interest. The overcrowding of our prisons gets worse by the day. But I was disappointed that you dodged the real issue: Too many of our jail cells are filled with drug

Mr. Templeton

Thank you for taking time to read my editorial and for your thoughtful response. The editorial was a very scaled-down version of a report we released last month on the prison capacity shortfall. The report expands on the points made in the editorial, though it is still limited in scope. My research did not address the underlying causes of the higher prison population, only the legisla-ture’s response to the problem.

You can access the report at www.effwa.org/doc. In the full report, I did point out that the legislature

recently passed a DUI felony law and enacted stricter penalties for sex offenders, which will add over 1,400 new prisoners to the system by June 2017. Funding was only provided to house half that number. Many legislators are not being realistic about the impact of sentencing laws in that regard.

Also, we are not against expanded rehabilitation programs for offenders. On the contrary, because certain

Both the Governor and the Legislature focused on inputs (more spending) as opposed to the Priorities of Govern-ment’s (POG) concentration on outcomes. The budget did not:

• identify and budget for the strategies that are most effective in achieving expected results;

• indicate how the state should prioritize spending to pay for the activities that are most critical to imple-menting those strategies; or

• explain how the state will identify progress. Your website also identifies the following key benefits of the POG Approach which were not utilized in the budget:

• helps keep the focus on contribution to priority results by letting us escape agency "silos" and consider state-wide strategies;

• makes performance information more relative to bud-get choices;

• helps frame the question "Are we sure we're buying things at the best possible price?”

In addition, there is no apparent link between GMAP (Government Accountability and Performance) and the budget.

Please review the priorities in the November 2006 POG report located at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/pog/default.htm. Even though prisons are overcrowded and there is an identified need for more prison beds by DOC, the governor and OFM consider this a low priority (page 112). That is a failure to follow the POG process.

Beyond that, the legislature’s failure to maintain spending with-in forecasted revenue levels, tak-ing us from a $2 billion surplus to a $1.2 billion deficit, is also a fail-ure to live up to POG.

Additionally, the budget bill does not include performance expectations for appropriated spending. For the most part, the budget reads like a laundry list of ways to spend. Without adequate performance measures, as POG requires, taxpayers cannot know whether programs achieve their expected results or not.

Funding was also provided for various questionable programs, such as $450,000 to market the 2010 Olympic Games, which we do not believe are core functions of government. Perhaps you disagree.

Based on the legislature’s overspending, the budget’s lack of performance measures, the focus on inputs as opposed to outcomes, the various spending appropriations dedicated to non-core functions, and the failure to provide adequately for public safety, we conclude that the legislature failed to utilize POG meaningfully in the construction of the budget. Respectfully,Amber Gunn, Policy Analyst

offenders. It’s about half of the total. Just two pages before yours was an article headlined “’End drug war’ forum to include Stamper, county councilman.” I wish you would read it. There are now more than a half million Americans incarcerated on drug charges. The vast majority of these have committed no real crimes. They have just engaged in private behavior by consenting adults. Thousands of dangerous criminals who have committed murders, rapes and robberies have been let out on our streets because we need the facilities to put drug offenders in. Are you unaware of this? That hardly seems likely. And yet, your essay made no mention at all of it. It’s like you’re living in some fantasy land. Time to wake up, Amber. In the Declaration Of Independence, Tom Jefferson (cribbing his words from John Locke and George Mason) said that in a free society, each person is entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. In his Notes On The State Of Virginia, he said that “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others”. John Stuart Mill said the same thing: “The only time government may use force against an individual is to prevent him from causing harm to others... But over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign”. We held to these wise principles until 1913, when we began the witch hunt against some drugs. It

hasn’t stopped anyone from using drugs. As we all know, drugs are more available than ever before. But it has given us horrible violence, terrible corruption and massive abuses of human rights. This will continue until people such as you have the integrity and courage to join former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper and call for an end to this madness. Writing an article about prison overcrowding and not even mentioning the real reason for it is terribly irresponsible. Brian Templeton

Liquor Control

Prison Capacity

Readers respond to policy pieces written by EFF Analyst Amber Gunn

Continued on next page . . .

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

n the spirit of one of my great heroes, P.J. O’Rourke, I have taken the liberty of rewriting our state budget.

Since lawmakers couldn’t seem to keep spending within forecasted revenue levels, I thought I’d give it a try.

First, it would be helpful to know the methodology legislators use when crafting a budget. Conventional budgeting establishes a baseline for all government programs, which is determined by taking the current year’s costs and adding funds for inflation and population growth. After supplementing new funds for expected caseload increases and the number of inept relatives they expect to appoint to positions in those programs, legislators can pat themselves on the back and call it a session.

I, on the other hand, will start with the sensible number of zero and use Priorities of Government to construct my budget.

We’ll use classical liberal principles to answer the first fundamental POG question: What are the core functions of government?

Answer: Public safety and public health, in that order. That was easy enough.

Second POG question: What are the results expected from government?

Answer: That the natural rights of all citizens will be protected equally and fairly, including every person’s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Final POG question: How do we prioritize spending to buy the activities that are most critical to achieving those results?

Answer: With each expenditure legislators must ask themselves, “Does this appropriation protect a right or create a right?” If the answer is the latter, it is not a priority, and the resultant activities should not be purchased.

We at EFF believe governments were instituted to protect the natural rights of every person, as laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

However, we understand the political reality that more than 70 years of an active welfare state have changed Americans’ perceptions of what is and is not a right. So certain things that would not have been considered a right when the Founders were around, such as free public education and free healthcare, are considered rights today.

Therefore, in the spirit of compromise, I will forego the dream of truly limited government and capitulate to allowing certain services that citizens have come to enjoy.

Since education is the state’s “paramount duty” as outlined in our Constitution, it’s about time our kids started getting educated. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average private school tuition in 2000 was $4,689. Assuming a 1.6

percent inflation rate between 2000 and 2007, the average private school tuition would be around $5,200 today. Our state spends $7,929.93 per student per year on public education, or $10,441.69 including federal and local funds.

The first move in my taxpayer-friendly budget is to provide each student with a voucher of $5,200, payable to any school that the student would like to attend. That should cut the state education budget by about half. In addition, the need for local levies and federal dollars would be eliminated. Parents and students are happy, since they now have a choice, and taxpayers are happy, since they are paying less. The only loser is the Washington Education Association, and I for one, will not shed a tear.

Now that our kids are learning more, and you and I are paying less, we’ll get to some of the major things government has taken over that individuals and businesses can do for themselves.

Let’s talk CTED. The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development’s sole purpose is to provide grants and loans to local businesses and communities. State funds should be for state purposes; local governments and businesses don’t need state handouts. Combined operating and capital budgets total about $1.3 billion. We’ll cut this department entirely.

Moving quickly now, the Amber budget will cut the following agencies and/or departments, ignoring any with budgets below $10 million. Remember, individuals and business can and/or should do these things for themselves.

I would also cut Natural Resources by 50 percent and DSHS by 50 percent, since those budgets have been

by Amber GunnBudgeting 101: Building a budget from the ground up

ballooning out of control for years due to funding things like healthcare for non-citizens and weed control. It’s not a stretch to say they could get by on half their current budgets. That’s a combined savings of $10.3 billion.

Now, based on the painful amount of time I spent reading the state budget, I figure at least

30 percent of the remaining budget is made up of programs and appropriations to fund things like certifying animal massage therapists and making sure people have enough money to preserve their barns. In the Amber budget, all these programs would be cut.

I would of course put a fair chunk of change into a rainy day fund to prepare for inevitable economic downturns. We’ll say around $1 billion to be safe.

I won’t touch the revenue side this year, but next year we’ll get rid of all those egregious tax loopholes and replace all taxes with a universal sales tax of 15 percent to pay for government functions.

I would also eliminate budget games by axing the various “accounts” the

legislature uses to shift funds and veil the real amount of dollars spent. All funds would be appropriated from one account, thereby restoring transparency, simplicity, and accountability to the budget.

With these budget reforms, kids and parents get choice, taxpayers and businesses get freedom, and redundant, wasteful government expenditures are cut or reduced.

Not only that, but every taxpayer will see a hefty rebate with the funds saved. That should make up for any inconveniences caused by my spending cuts and “put the economic blender on puree” as P.J. puts it.

So why haven’t legislators adopted my budget? Beats me.

I

Agency Dollars saved:

Washington State Liquor Control Board $231.6 million

State Lottery Commission $795.8 million

Washington State Gambling Commission $34.0 million

State Convention and Trade Center $90.7 million

Department of Employment Security $616.9 million

cutsAmber’sAgency

programs such as adult basic education and sex offender treatment have been proven to reduce recidivism effectively, we believe these are excellent uses of state funds. We recommend the legislature fund programs that have been proven effective.

Our first priority right now is to make sure the DOC ceases the early release of felons who have violated the terms of their release because of overcrowding. The legislature must provide adequate confinement facilities for inmates who jeopardize public safety.

We believe this should take priority over tourism promotion, business assistance, museum funding, and other questionable expenditures.

Thanks again for your response.

Amber Gunn

Send us your thoughts.

Here’s how:

Send letters to:Living LibertyC/O evergreen Freedom FoundationAttention: Booker Stallworth Address: PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507Fax: 360.352.1874

E-mail: bstallworth@effwa.org

Letters, not exceeding 250 words, must

include your full name, address and

telephone numbers for verification. This

information will not be published. Letters

become the property of Living Liberty

and may be edited for clarity, brevity or

grammar prior to publication.

Letters to the editor continued from page 8 . . .

�0 LIVING LIBERTY

he word “emergency” usually brings to mind earth-quakes, Mount Rainier blowing its top or local riv-

ers flooding their banks on Election Day. Based on this year’s legislative session, however, several less obvi-ous scenarios should be included. Dangers like a lack of horse race broadcasts (SB 5389), unorganized genetic cross-breeding of canola seeds (HB 1888), and an out-door recreation committee needs a new name (HB 1813).

Legislators attached an “emergency clause” to bills addressing these three issues, declaring these acts were “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state govern-ment and its existing public institutions.” Using this constitutionally-created declaration means the bill goes into effect immediately, preventing citizens from exer-cising their constitutional right to run a referendum on the bill.

While that may be necessary in a real emergency, it has been used by legislators to prevent “citizen interference” with highly controversial measures. This type of abuse has been challenged several times in the state supreme court, most notably on bills to fund Safeco Field and to gut the spending cap in Initiative 601. Both times the court reneged on its duty to check power abuses by the legislature, holding that “emergency” means whatever the legislature wants it to.

We conducted an analysis on the use of emergency clauses in 2005 and were shocked to find that ninety-eight bills (nineteen percent) were passed with the clause. That finding, coupled with the Court’s decision to uphold the emergency clause on the I-601 gutting, motivated the legislature to rein in their abuse in 2006. That year only ten percent of passed legislation included the clause.

That moderate restraint, however, seems to have slipped this year. Out of 524 bills passed this session, seventy-three bills (thirteen percent) were sent to Gover-nor Gregoire’s desk with emergency clauses attached.

At least nine of these “emergency” bills were highly controversial. The degree of debate surround them is reflected by close roll call votes on measures like:

• HB 1569—establishing health insurance partner-ships;

• HB 2079—determining how unions can use agency shop fees;

• HB 2391—eliminating retirement system gain-shar-ing;

• SB 5627—providing for development of a new basic education funding system;

• SSB 5659—providing paid family medical leave; and

• SSB 6023—delaying math and science WASL requirements.

After the session ended in mid-April, the veto of an emergency clause by Governor Gregoire gave hope that she would impose needed restraint to the legislature. In her veto message (on HB 1000), she proclaimed that the clause “should be used sparingly because its application has the effect of limiting citizens’ right to referendum.” While that particular bill wasn’t controversial, she also vetoed the emergency clauses of nearly a dozen more bills, including the controversial WASL bill, explaining that she was “on the lookout for unneeded emergency clauses.”

These hopes for restraint were dashed, however, when the governor signed HB 2079 with the emergency clause intact. The legislative floor debate made it clear this bill was purely for the benefit of unions, with absolutely no public need, much less emergency. It was a perfect example of using an emergency clause to prevent a citi-zen referendum. Governor Gregoire’s decision to sign it reveals her hypocrisy on this issue and demonstrates she cannot be trusted to guard the citizens’ right of ref-erendum.

The continued abuse by the legislature, the governor’s hypocrisy, and the abdication of responsibility by the Supreme Court leave no recourse but a constitutional amendment. EFF has proposed model language for an amendment that would require a super-majority vote for any bill with an emergency clause attached (except for appropriation bills). That would ensure controversial bills like HB 2079 could not be passed with an emer-

aws without consequences are worse than useless. Not only can lawbreakers do their dirty work with-

out fear of repercussions, but citizens lose their respect for government when they see crimes being ignored.

The enforcement of election laws are no exception. Much ink has been spilled over the firing of John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Western Washington and what part the issue of voter fraud played in his dismissal. Setting aside for the moment the manner of his firing, his story illustrates why ignoring election crimes damages both the security of the election process and citizens’ perceptions of that process.

The 2004 Washington state election was a maelstrom of election problems. Uncounted ballots kept turning up, there were thousands more votes than voters, and

evidence of illegal votes was surfacing everywhere. After three recounts only 133 votes separated the candidates, out of nearly 3 million cast. More evidence of problems kept turning up in the months after the election, including cover-ups of ballot mishandling by election officials. If there were ever a situation where the evidence of voter fraud was obvious to all, this was it. In fact, a much smaller set of election problems in Milwaukee that same year led to five federal convictions (by the local U.S. Attorney) for felon voting.

Despite strong evidence of federal election crimes like felon voting, duplicate voting and the intentional counting of illegal ballots (among others), John McKay chose to ignore these “minor problems.” Publicly stating that he saw no evidence of fraud, that it wasn’t his job, or that he had no authority; he gave not one indication of conducting any investigation. In fact, by his own admission, he dropped any interest in the matter after the post-election litigation was over in mid-2005. In his absence, concerned citizens continued to dig through ballot envelopes and databases. To this day they are still unearthing new evidence of hundreds of illegal ballots

miscounted by election officials in 2004—evidence McKay’s office probably could have uncovered much faster.

What happens when prosecutors like McKay ignore their duty to enforce the laws? First, the crimes continue. Despite evidence that dozens of double-votes were cast in subsequent Washington elections, only now are state officials actively looking for them. Second, citizens lose faith in elections. A full year after the 2004 fiasco, a poll of Washington voters revealed that over 70 percent believed that the deliberate miscounting of votes by local election officials was a major problem in the state.

Whether ignorance or intentional refusal, John McKay’s failure to investigate vote fraud damaged the integrity of Washington elections. The lessons to

be learned from his bad example, however, have been muddied by faulty conclusions peddled by liberal groups like the New York University-based Brennan Center for Justice.

The Brennan Center seems to want the American public to follow McKay’s example by burying their heads in the sand. Center attorneys recently defended McKay’s inaction, calling vote fraud a “phantom” and a “myth.”

In fact, the real myths can be found in Brennan Center statements, such as this one: “Experts have concluded that the most significant threat of fraud comes from electronic voting systems.”

While electronic voting does have many security issues, a recent study by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission on voter fraud concluded that “absentee balloting is subject to the greatest proportion of fraudulent acts,” based on interviews

with many election experts (including a Brennan Center director).

Ironically, the Brennan Center’s activities in Washington state have probably made vote fraud more likely to occur. Last year their attorneys teamed up with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to strike down a Washington state law providing security for the state voter rolls.

Despite dire predictions that the law would disenfranchise thousands of voters, they were unable to produce even one person who had actually been kept from voting under the law. Soon after the Brennan Center secured a temporary injunction of the law, it was revealed that their litigation partner, ACORN, had filed hundreds of fraudulent voter registration cards, a case currently under investigation by local prosecutors.

Voter fraud is a real and a perceived problem. John McKay failed to thoroughly investigate clear evidence of federal crimes. Such failures, in addition to distortions of the truth by the likes of the Brennan Center, only make it more difficult to restore voters’ confidence in the integrity of their elections.

by Jonathan Bechtle

Fires, floods, and horse racesCitizens’ right of referendum trampled by legislature and governor

by Jonathan BechtleIgnorance of voter fraud is no excuse

gency clause, but wouldn’t prevent use of the clause in a real emergency. Representative Barbara Bailey intro-duced such an amendment this year, but the House leadership would not allow it to be voted on.

Such a fix should be a top priority for the 2008 legislature.

T

L

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION ��

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 confirmation 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 $

Are you 70½ years old this year?

t may be an indelicate question to ask, but, if you are 70½, under the IRS tax law, you must begin

withdrawing income from your IRA. While I think Congress should stop minding your business on these matters, they don’t seem inclined to agree, so you have no choice but to take out funds.

Perhaps you need the money to pay for living expenses. If so, you’ll be glad you have it. If not, you will have to

take the withdrawals anyway and add the amount into your taxable income…unless you take advantage of a law signed by President Bush last year.

The new law allows anyone who is 70 ½ or older to transfer up to $100,000 in tax free dollars directly from their IRA to one or more 501(c)(3) organizations. It counts against your minimum distribution amount.

This provision expires December 31, 2007. Who knows if Congress will reauthorize it!

If you need more information, please talk with your financial advisor to determine whether this option is good for you.

We would be happy to be considered among your worthy charities. In the words of EFF Trustee Dick Rokes: “All I ask is that you consider making a donation to a worthy cause. After all, you do have to withdraw funds from your IRA upon reaching 70 ½, which would otherwise be taxable at your marginal tax rate (your top rate). As an EFF Trustee, I will be making a portion of my $100,000 as a donation to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. I urge you to consider doing the same.”

by Lynn Harsh

I

I would normally not ask about your age, but…

�� LIVING LIBERTY

he great thing about business is that success or fail-ure is usually easy to measure in dollars and cents.

Take advertising, for example. Businesses advertise be-cause it works—it helps sell their products. In the world of activism, we sell products, too. We want people to “buy” our ideas.

Look into your local newspaper and you will see thousands of dollars worth of advertising for products. There is probably advertising for ideas in there, too, in the form of letters to the editor and opinion columns. Invest enough thought and effort and they, too, can be worth the equivalent of thousands of dollars in the marketplace of ideas.

How do we write the “thousand-dollar” letter? Here are five tips that can make the difference.

Empathy. How do we convince a person to reconsider what he believes? One of the most effective methods is to elicit his empathy by making him see things from someone else’s point of view. Facts and figures are great, but stories are better. In something as brief as a letter to the editor, this might be the difference between say-ing, “our high taxes punish successful businesses,” and “when ‘mom and pop’ finally experience business suc-cess, why do we punish them?” If this conflicts with the rule favoring brevity, allow the two rules to fight it out on your word processor.

Brevity. There is almost always a word limit—know it and be under it. Cut out unnecessary words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs. Then cut again. Look for ways to rephrase, always tightening up your language.

Clarity. Make sure the letter makes sense, and not just to those who agree with you. Will your point be clear to the people you are trying to convince? We are trying to

Directness. Get to the heart of the matter. Short of a compelling tactical reason to say things in a round-a-bout way, say them directly. Readers appreciate candor, and those who are not blinded by ideology will see that you have the courage of your convictions.

clarity

brevity

The Citizen Action Network will award one thousand dollars in cash prizes to the best and most prolific writers of letters to the editor from June through December of this year. Authors must be CAN members or associate members (membership is

free, sign up now at WWW.EFFCAN.OrG).

Contest Rules: Letters must be writ-

ten by the named author and published as a let-

ter to the editor in the opinion section of a general

circulation newspaper that has at least one printed

edition per week for the entire period from June 1,

2007, through January 1, 2008. If the same letter is

published by multiple qualifying newspapers, each

different publication shall be counted as a different

letter. Letters must in some way advocate for indi-

vidual liberty, free enterprise, or limited, account-

able government.

Letters may be submitted by non-members,

but only those who are associate members or

members of the Citizen Action Network on or

before December 1, 2007, will be eligible to

win. Apply online for associate membership at

WWW.EFFCAN.ORG or call 360-956-3482 to

request a CAN application form. Membership is

not automatic, and application processing time

varies. Approved associate members will be

notified of their status and are eligible to become

full members by completing the First Principles of

Freedom training course.

Prizes will be awarded by January 31, 2008.

The “most persuasive” letters will be selected

by a panel of judges chosen by the Director of

the Citizen Action Network. All letters must be

accepted by the Director of the Citizen Action

Network.

Accuracy. The first law of communication is get your facts right. Check and double-check and triple-check any factual assertion. Use multiple sources wherever possible, making a special effort to use sources that don’t

Accuracy

Always look for a hook, preferably some recent story in that newspaper, to justify your letter. Many newspapers only print letters with some kind of a connection to a news story or current event, though some will print more general letters.

Also, remember: write to persuade. Use the carrot more than the stick; use a soft touch. Force those who may disagree to defend their positions against the force of your facts and your argument. Readers will notice the letter writer who time and again makes sensible, honest arguments. That credibility will make future letters even more persuasive.

Happy writing!

by Trent England

C I T I Z E N A C T I O N N E T W O R K w w w. e f f C A N . o r g =

T

Prizes for the most letters to the editor published between June 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008:

First Place: $500

Second Place: $150

Third Place: $50Prizes for the most persuasive letter to the editor published between June 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008

First Place: $100

Honorable Mention (four awards): $50

To enter the contest, send your published letters to the editor to:

Letter Contest Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

Or email a link to an online version of your letter to tengland@effwa.org (letters must also appear in print, verification may be required).

directness

empathyHOW TO WRITE ATHOUSAND-DOLLAR

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

agree with your point of view. Never assume. We re-member the saying about that, right? I once started writ-ing a letter complaining about a particular legislator’s vote. Halfway through, I looked at the roll call and dis-covered that the representative had voted the other way (the right way). A factual error can destroy an author’s credibility for years to come. Always be accurate.

persuade, after all—not just vent or make ourselves feel good. Always have someone else read your letter before you send it—the more objective and constructively criti-cal, the better.