A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

have been traveling a great deal speaking to groups all over this

state. I am finding that voters are craving leadership. They are look-ing for a candidate who will advance a free market, limited government agenda. They will embrace it when they find it. That’s what made Presi-dent Reagan so successful.

More and more voters are fed up with both parties. They don’t like the Democrat policies, but they don’t think the Republicans offer solutions either.

Now we are caught up in the Obama phenomenon. The liberal base is really energized over a candidate who is inspiring and who offers hope. Just don’t ask for any details of the Obama hope agenda.

Conservatives, libertarians and many moderates are looking for someone to project a vision and offer a free market agenda that allows individuals to flourish.

Voters are also frustrated with elected officials who, once elected, don’t do what they promised as candidates. They are frustrated with higher taxes, gridlock on the roads, unbalanced land use policies, broken welfare and education systems and a government - designed health care program.

Voters don’t want process or studies; they want solutions to our problems.

EFF believes a free market agenda that champions limited, effective, transparent and accountable government is the best hope for the survival of our Republic and is essential to getting our state back on the right track.

It is up to us—the grassroots, the people, the real sovereigns in our Republic—to change the political landscape and return to common sense principles. This will not happen just because we wish it so.

Article 1, Section 1 of our state Constitution clearly states that governments are established to protect and maintain individual rights, that the people are the sovereigns and that all “political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In other words, we the people—the grassroots—are in charge! We are the sovereigns! But only if we exercise our powers.

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

HOW TO ELECT A PRESIDENT 7 U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ELECTION SECURITY 9

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

BRING BACK PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT 8

I EFF believes the best way to advance freedom is to have a debate on the role of government. Let us highlight the central differences on ideas and substance.

Thomas Jefferson stated it best when he said, “Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. Those that identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interest.”

If we engage liberals in a debate on the real issue of our time—the role of government and our core governing principles—we win! We will be able to advance freedom. There is no doubt that the majority of people favor our view on the role of government.

Jefferson, a statesman the Democrats claim as their own, said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

Let me suggest a winning free market agenda for this fall.

Continued on page 6

Free Market Agenda 20081. Limit government to its constitutional roles

and responsibilities. We need to ask three ques-tions for any proposed or actual government activity. 1) Is this activity a proper function of government? 2) At what level of government should this activity be performed? 3) How should this activity be funded?

2. Make all areas of government open, account-able and transparent to the people so citizens can remain in control of the instrument of govern-ment they have created. EFF is working to create an online user-friendly, searchable tax and spending database for state and local governments, including school districts.

3. Restore voter integrity and protect free and fair elections. Require proof of citizenship and both photo and signature identification for all voters. Our founders gave up their bullets for ballots and we don’t want to return to bullets. Many citizens are still very angry over the 2004 gubernatorial election and the lack of significant reform both at the state level and particularly in King County. Felons must com-plete their entire court-ordered punishment, includ-ing fines and restitution, before having their voting rights restored.

“ Every government degenerates when trusted to

the rulers of the people alone. The people them-

selves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

– Thomas Jefferson

by Bob Williams

2 LIVING LIBERTY

3

4

67

89

1012

“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 6

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue3 LETTER FROM LYNN A DISSONANT CHORD STATE OUTPACES ITS OWN GROWTH ESTIMATES

4 READING THE FEDERALIST NECESSARY POWERS: DEFENSE AND TAXATION 6 LEGALESE UPDATES ON EFF LEGAL ACTION

7 HOW TO ELECT A PRESIDENT OUR ELECTORAL COLLEGE VERSUS THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

8 TAXPAYER-FUNDED CAMPAIGNS, TWO WOLVES AND THE LAMB OF LIBERTY CALLING ALL LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES: BRING BACK PRIORITIES OF GOV.

9 VICTORY! U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ELECTION SECURITY 10 TEACHERS UNIONS PROHIBIT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES PUGET SOUND FERRY TAX ON THE HORIZON

12 CELEBRITY BOXING: THE SIMPSONS VS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Tom Henry

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

- Ronald Reagan

CANClAss sChEdulE

Please contact Juliana McMahan to register for any of these classes (JMcMahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482).

REGIsTER

PuyAlluPJune 14, 2008First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)Location: Puyallup Public Library, South Meeting Room, 324 S Meridian, Puyallup, WA

shElToNJune 7, 2008First 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: Alpine Way Retirement Center, 900 W Alpine Way, Shelton, WA

JUNE 2008

W W W . L I B E R T Y L I V E . O R G

ChECK ouT

ouR BloG!POST YOUR OPINION ON THE ISSUES!

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

TA Dissonant Chord

by Amber Gunn and Brian Zapotockystate outpaces its own growth estimates

If the state bureaucracy had a foot, it would probably be comparable to that of professional basketball play-

er Shaquille O’Neal. Unlike Shaq, however, the state’s footprint demands taxpayer dollars to feed its rapid ex-pansion.

As home base for all state executive and agency office headquarters, Thurston County is disproportionately af-fected by the state’s aggressive growth rate. This should matter to all Washington residents though, since the state’s growth rate in the Thurston County is reflective of government’s overall growth.

The Department of General Administration (GA), an agency involved in facilities planning and management for the state, released a study in October 2000 which

identified 5.3 million square feet of government owned and leased space in Thurston County.

A similar GA study released in June 2006 found the state’s footprint had grown an astounding 56 percent to approximately 8.3 million square feet.

Even more startling is the inaccuracy of the govern-ment’s own ten-year growth estimates. The 2000 GA re-port suggested the state should acquire between 550,000 and 1.2 million additional square feet over a ten-year period to provide for a growing number of state employ-ees. Even the GA’s most ambitious ten-year estimate fell short of the three million square feet in actual growth that already has occurred.

But the state’s facility expansion is merely mirroring the growth of government as a whole. State spending has increased 34% in the last two biennia and, accord-ing to the Office of Financial Management, about one in five Washington workers is currently employed by state, county or local governments.

Since governments do not have their own source of revenue, this means the other four workers must pay taxes to support the government worker. As more work-ers become employed by the state, the burden on the private sector to fund their wages, pensions and other benefits grows.

he evening was warm and lovely. Soft smiles adorned our faces as we concert-goers drifted

across the campus of a local high school. We were en route to the Performing Arts Center to listen to what we all assumed would be another excellent production by the Olympia Chorale Society.

But a familiar angst began building inside me, running parallel with the anticipation of a great musical experience.

A woman was passing out flyers at one entrance door. Something inside told me my angst would build if I took a flyer, so I chose another door.

The concert was marvelous: two hours of deeply moving and delightful music performed by talented local musicians. The vocal texture and timbre of Jesu, Priceless Treasure and Bach’s Motet No. 2 in E Minor was pure pleasure. Tingles went up my spine listening to the Lamentations of Jeremiah and the modern piece, Sleep.

All the while, clashing against the glory of the music was an equally sharp sentiment of a different kind.

Then some really fun pieces, such as an arrangement highlighting Ogden Nash’s animal poetry, and Billy Joel’s New York State of Mind.

But there was no avoiding the reason for my internal discomfort. It happens every time I walk into a school. I’ve spent a lot of time in schools as a student, a child of parents who were teachers, a parent of two students and as a teacher myself.

In a great school, the intellectual stimulation, vision and genuine fondness for students create a deeply satisfying work experience. I even faintly miss faculty meetings and the lounge where we gathered to eat lunch, grade papers and complain about one thing or another.

Many of us have fond memories of learning to play an instrument or a sport in school. Perhaps we learned to play chess, sing, debate, or speak a foreign language there. It may have been the place we ate breakfast and lunch. Many of us formed deep friendships with classmates, and some married their high school sweethearts.

And here I sat at the lovely concert in a high-school auditorium, hearing during breaks or introductions that the current school levy must pass or much of this would be gone. School music programs would be cut. More than a dozen chorale members identified themselves as public school music teachers—including their exuberant, talented director—and their jobs would be

on the line. No doubt, most of these folks cared just as much about what their students would lose as their own potential misfortunes.

I care deeply about such things. It was, after all, music and sports that kept me in high school learning other subject matter.

I picked up a piece of paper from the floor, and there it was—the flyer I had avoided earlier at the entrance. Top Ten Levy Facts was the title, and it informed me that the levy in my school district makes up 16 percent of the total district funding. A long list of levy-supported programs followed, and while the flyer didn’t say those items would be cut, the implication was clear.

But many important things were missing from the flyer. Here are a few.

That particular school district has a budget of $112,800,000 for 13,500 students. It receives $8,780 per year per student in federal and state funds, much of which never makes it to the classroom. The district’s class sizes are smaller than most and it employs more than 2,000 staff, 856 of whom are classroom teachers.

District information indicates that student test scores are on the rise, but posted results are mixed and do not show a sustained upward trend. It looks more like a flat line when aggregated.

In most categories, this district does not fare as well as neighboring schools in terms of academic results or dropouts. It does have factors that could contribute to greater challenges, such as its size. But I was surprised to see that the district’s poverty rates, English as a Second Language students and migratory populations are pretty similar to those of its neighbors. The district spends more money in areas that education leaders say should produce better results, such as smaller classes and more teachers with Masters Degrees. But the results aren’t better.

Like surrounding districts, the district has enjoyed revenue increases in the past ten years that far outpaced inflation and student population growth. Still, it appears money is in short supply, even if the levy passes. (It did)

So, what kind of education can you buy for $8,700 per year? That’s considerably more money than most private schools have. Half of those dollars will never make it to the classroom where the teacher and students are. Why? How come programs like music, sports, vocational programs and special education are always on the chopping block? Why aren’t test scores increasing more?

The answers are simple, but the solutions are not. Our current school system has become a heavily protected, bureaucratic monopoly. Great schools are in short supply, because excellence succumbs to the mediocre in this setting. Student academic expectations and the corresponding curriculum lose rigor. Students become restless, self-centered and often disruptive. Most parents have irresponsibly “checked out.”

The energy and vision of our best teachers and administrators are sapped and often undermined. Poor teachers aren’t fired. Resources are improperly allocated as our schools are expected to become one-stop centers for everything a child might need.

A system like this becomes expensive and inefficient, with regulations for every conceivable activity, thanks in great part to legislators who agree to micromanage from Olympia. As confidence wanes and test scores flat-line, multiple new tests are created and administered in an attempt to satisfy the brooding parents and employers.

As a result, our children are unprepared to face the rigors of citizenship and a global economy. Unpreparedness of the magnitude we are facing today is beginning to have profound consequences on our nation’s economy and the ability of our citizens to self-govern.

Voting “yes” on the ever present levies will not change this mess. We will not get better teachers, safer schools, more rigorous academic content and smarter children until we deregulate our schools and dump the current teacher pay system. Our schools need to be local again—not managed from Olympia or Washington D.C.

Those of us whose hearts lean hard toward education and teachers do neither any favor by pretending things will get better if we just pump more money into our schools. Smart investing is the key. It’s not how much money we spend, it’s how we spend the money we have.

Until then, dumping more money into a system that has already seized up only buys more time for mediocrity to flourish. It’s education’s dissonant chord in what should be a beautiful and harmonious experience.

“ unpreparedness of the magnitude we are facing today is beginning to have profound consequences on our nation’s economy and the ability of our citizens to self-govern.”

Continued on page 11

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Part V:

NEcEssary PowErs: DEfENsE aND taxatioNThe FederalistReading

Reading The Federalist in 2008The Federalist Papers explain 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 Rober t Middlekauff. For Americans who believe in the enduring value of the Constitution, The Federalist is an essential resource and a guide.

This essay is the fifth in a series to help readers understand and appreciate the lasting relevance of this American classic. Living Liber ty presents these monthly essays and encourages you to read The Federalist with us.

by Trent England

One of the greatest political debates in human history began on Septem-

ber 17, 1787, in Philadelphia. The Con-stitutional Convention, after nearly four months of deliberations, offered its new plan of government for the United States. It would not take effect unless approved by special ratifying conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states. Thus began a great conversation over how best to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

In homes and churches, town halls and taverns, pamphlets and newspapers, Americans debated. Supporters of the Constitution were known as Federalists; its opponents were the Anti-Federalists. George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention, was a staunch Federalist. He nevertheless recognized the great and lasting value of these ratification debates.

Upon the whole I doubt whether the opposition to the Constitution will not ultimately be productive of more good than evil; it has called forth, in its defence, abilities which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted that have thrown new light upon the science of Gov-ernment, they have given the

rights of man a full and fair dis-cussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible a manner, as cannot fail to make a lasting impression upon those who read the best publications on the sub-ject, and particularly the pieces under the signature of Publius.

The writings of Publius—the pen name used for 85 essays written by Alexan-der Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay—set forth the definitive case for the Constitution. Together, the essays are known as The Federalist Papers, or sim-ply, The Federalist.

From December 19, 1787, to January 11, 1788, fourteen Federalist essays pre-miered in New York City newspapers. All were by Hamilton and addressed the responsibilities and corresponding pow-ers necessary for any government of the United States.

Federalist No. 23: The necessity of “energetic” government (Hamilton)

A mark of the genius of Publius is the awareness in each essay of its place in the larger work. The series moves according to the design set forth in the introductory paper, first to show the importance of the union of all the states, then to illustrate the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

In the twenty-third essay, Publius moves to his third objective: to demonstrate “the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed.”

Even readers who agree that the union is indispensible and the Articles are fail-ing may have reservations about the new and extensive powers lodged in the national government. Before moving on to interpret and defend the details of the new plan, Publius must first address this fundamental question of power.

Publius proceeds to list four “principle purposes” for maintaining the states united:• “common defense,”• “preservation of the public peace”

against internal and external threats,• “regulation of commerce with other

nations and between the States,” and• conducting foreign policy.

Elaborating on the first of these, Publius writes that providing for the “common defense” requires the power “to raise armies; to build and equip fleets, to pre-scribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support.” What should be the extent of these powers? Publius arrives at a sim-ple answer: “These powers ought to exist without limitation….”

To Publius, government powers are the means, and “the means ought to be pro-portioned to the end; the persons from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.” While the ends of government must be limited and the processes must remain accountable to the people, “no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed” on powers such as are necessary for the defense of the people.

Even the Articles of Confederation, Publius points out, give Congress “unlim-ited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations.” It is only the failure to provide effective enforce-ment of such requisitions that renders these powers illusory. Publius reminds readers that “an entire change in the first principles of the system” is necessary, allowing the newly constituted federal

government to enforce its laws against individual citizens.

Federalist No. 24–29: To provide for the common defense (Hamilton)

The Declaration of Independence com-plained that King George III “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” One criticism made by the Anti-Feder-alists against the proposed Constitution was the lack of any check against peace-time standing armies. Publius raises this charge in Federalist No. 24 in order to rebut it.

The Constitution, writes Publius, places the whole power to raise and maintain armies with the national legislature—“representatives of the people periodi-cally elected.” It further restricts military appropriations to no more than two years, thus the funds for an army can never be appropriated beyond a single congressio-nal election.

Publius surveys the existing state con-stitutions to find that only two make men-tion of standing armies. Pennsylvania’s cautions against, but does not strictly prohibit, keeping armies during peace time. The Constitution of North Caro-lina requires legislative consent to raise or maintain an army. He finds likewise no restriction placed on Congress by the Articles.

With European powers maintaining footholds in North America and the like-lihood of conflicts with the Indians in the West, Publius warns Americans against complacency. It is better, he says, to man the necessary garrisons with a few regu-lar troops than to constantly draw militia away from their communities for such rotations. Publius closes the essay by noting the importance of a navy to com-merce and security and offering that an effective navy might reduce the need for land forces.

The possibility of providing for defense of the United States by state governments is Publius’ topic in No. 25. This would leave the burdens of defense unequally shared among the states, though all would benefit. It might also precipitate military

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

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

During 2008, Living Liberty will present monthly essays and encourages you to read The Federalist with us.

“ thE most PowErfUl boDy of Political thoUght EvEr ProDUcED iN amErica.”

– robErt miDDlEkaUff

“ George Washington and

other Federalists believed

the Constitution would

preserve the union of

the states, making them

less likely to war among

themselves and more

secure against foreign

enemies. The Federalist

Papers suggest the

particular importance of

establishing a navy. The

U.S.S. George Washington

is one of America’s Nimitz-

class aircraft carriers.”

rivalries among the states, increasing the risk from peacetime standing armies. Reliance on state militia alone is insuffi-cient for the “common defense,” because effective forces require instruction and training beyond what can be expected of part-time soldiers.

Publius also addresses the idea, put forward by Anti-Federalist writers, of including some limitation on standing armies in the text of the Constitution. This, he points out, would be but a parch-ment barrier. The danger of standing armies assumes a cabal between Con-gress and the Executive. Should that be the case, they could surely find pretext to satisfy whatever restrictions might be placed on their powers of defense.

When governments unnaturally limit their power, they must either fail or become lawless according to Publius.

Wise politicians will be cau-tious about fettering the govern-ment with restrictions that can-

not be observed, because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dic-tated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a prec-edent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable.

In essays No. 26–29, Publius completes his discussion of the power of “common defense.” He alleges that some of the con-cerns about standing armies are imported from monarchical systems and do not apply in a republic where the relevant powers are vested in the legislature. The Constitution’s system of elections and the balance of powers between Congress, the Executive and the states will ensure, under any reasonable and foreseeable cir-cumstances, that the military forces will

remain subject to the people and their civil government.

Federalist No. 30–36: Taxation (Hamilton)

Without revenues, a government will either turn to outright plunder or will “sink into a fatal atrophy.” Publius devotes seven essays to justifying “the general power of taxation” in the pro-posed government.

The Articles of Confederation relied on the “good will” of the state governments to provide funds requested by Congress. The insufficiency of that system, writes Publius, “is within the knowledge of every man the least conversant in our public affairs.” The answer, he says, is to “permit the national government to raise its own revenues by the ordinary meth-ods of taxation authorized in every well ordered constitution.”

One of the Anti-Federalist responses was to call for limiting federal taxes to duties on imports and exports. Publius counters that such a limited source of revenue would prove insufficient at the first outbreak of war, requiring the gov-ernment to divert funds to meet the crisis and thereby damaging the public credit. Publius again offers the people and their representatives as the ultimate check against government excesses.

Publius shows that the federal and state governments can exercise taxing power concurrently, contrary to the fears of Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would preempt state taxing authority. In Federalist No. 33, he defends both the Necessary and Proper Clause (the last clause in Article I, section 8) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI). These are redundant, writes Publius. Congress must have the power to pass binding laws that are necessary and proper for carry-ing out its enumerated powers.

Publius argues through the end of this series of essays for a complete power of Federal taxation concurrent with state authority. He considers the different “interests” and “classes” in America and whether they can be adequately repre-sented in Congress. Even if members of Congress are almost entirely land own-ers, merchants and professionals, Publius believes they will represent enough dif-ferent interests to protect the interests of most Americans.

After a last few items about the practi-calities of collecting taxes, Publius closes the essay and what would become the first volume of the first edition of The Feder-alist Papers with a reflection on the Con-stitution. “Happy will it be for ourselves, and most honorable for human nature, if we have wisdom and virtue enough to set so glorious an example to mankind!”

IMAG

ES C

OURT

ESY

OF D

EPAR

TMEN

T OF

DEF

ENSE

alExaNDEr hamiltoN

6 LIVING LIBERTY

Union dues and don’tshe U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review an Idaho law that EFF has worked closely on in re-

cent years. The Idaho Voluntary Contributions Act pro-hibited unions from using government payroll systems for political fundraising.

An affiliate of the Idaho Education Association and several other unions sued, claiming the measure silences their political voice. The Ninth Circuit invalidated the law as it applies to local governments because it singles out political speech.

The Voluntary Contributions Act is not intended to quash union political speech. The measure simply requires the union’s contributions to come directly

by Michael Reitz

T

from donors and keeps the government payroll system out of partisan politics. The union and its members have available to them every method of fundraising available to other political organizations.

A major problem with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that it could Balkanize labor relations by severing the state’s ability to regulate local government employees. Many regulations (right-to-work laws, paycheck protection, payroll authorizations, etc.) could be said to affect the union’s First Amendment advocacy. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling regards these laws with a higher level of suspicion, and could be used to undermine them.

In last year’s Davenport v. WEA ruling, the Supreme Court said that unions enjoy “extraordinary power” over government employees. These “entitlements” are conferred by state legislatures and therefore can be regulated, restricted or repealed by the legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled in past cases that unions have no constitutional right to government payroll deductions. Government entities owe unions no special obligation to collect their income.

We hope the Supreme Court will overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief with the Court, arguing that the Voluntary Contributions Act is a permissible regulation of organized labor.

Going to court to make tax increases easier

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown’s challenge to Initiative 601’s two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases took one step forward on April 17.

Near the end of legislative session, a proposed $10 million liquor tax failed to get the two-thirds vote needed

and Senate Majority Leader Brown asked Lt. Gov. Brad Owen to rule the requirement unconstitutional. “A two-thirds requirement to pass certain types of bills, in my opinion, is antidemocratic and violates the Washington constitution,” Brown said. Owen ruled that the question is for the courts to address.

In March the Supreme Court denied Sen. Brown’s motion for accelerated review, and sent the matter to the Court Commissioner. The options were to send the matter to trial court, retain the matter in the Supreme Court, or dismiss the entire action.

Which brings us to the most recent action. The Commissioner declined to dismiss the entire action and the case was retained for consideration by the Supreme Court. The issue was briefed in May and will be scheduled for oral argument some time in autumn. EFF plans to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of I-601’s two-thirds requirement.

4. Stop out-of-control government spending and ensure that all spending (current and future) is efficient, effective and constitutionally justified. Hold public officials accountable for spending decisions.

In order to accomplish almost anything on the free market agenda, we must first bring government spending under control. Government should not grow faster than the people’s pocketbooks and wallets.

5. Implement a constitutional spending limit and demand that legislators budget for results and include measurable performance outcomes. We need to force the legislature to hold public hearings on the status of implementing performance and financial audits.

6. Protect private property rights and limit property taxes. The U.S. and state constitutions and Declaration of Independence outline the protection of private property rights. We must urge legislators to pass limitations on eminent domain use to prevent abuse. We must urge legislators to reign in unelected and un-accountable growth management boards which seek to trump the authority of elected county officials and strip the rights of property owners. The state property

tax levy should be phased out over a six-year period and unused banking capacity needs to be eliminated. EFF is establishing a Constitutional Law Center and will launch a Property Rights Center next year to address these and other issues.

7. Increase student literacy by driving educa-tion dollars to parents of school children and creat-ing more choices. Public education officials need to be held accountable for results. EFF has produced a documentary (FLUNKED) to get this message out. EFF believes public education is a mission, not an institution. Directing funds to the student rather than to the school will give parents more options and increase the quality of education for our kids.

8. Develop and implement common sense solu-tions to traffic gridlock. The Legislature must fix the 520 floating bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct as well as create a replacement and maintenance plan for our ferry system that works. It’s time to expose the lib-eral agenda which is simply to ignore congestion entire-ly in the hope that will get you out of your cars.

9. Increase quality, access and cost stability in health care by advancing market-based reforms aimed at stabilizing costs and increasing quality and access.

10. Protect the first amendment rights of workers from forced political contributions by pass-ing a workers bill of rights that would require union members and agency fee payers to pay solely for charge-able expenditures such as collective bargaining, con-tract maintenance and grievances. Any other expendi-tures would be on an opt-in basis only.

The choice to support a free market agenda that advances freedom is clear, but it is up to you to ask the tough questions of the candidates running for office this year.

When you get discouraged, remember the words of Winston Churchill in the midst of World War II:

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never,—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

Free Market Agenda 2008Continued from page 1 . . .

In last year’s davenport v. WEA ruling, the supreme Court said that unions enjoy “extraordinary power” over government employees.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

Sen. Benton, Don (R-17)

Sen. Brandland, Dale (R-42)

Sen. Carrell, Mike (R-28)

Sen. Delvin, Jerome (R-8)

Sen. Hargrove, James (D-24)

Sen. Hewitt, Mike (R-16)

Sen. Holmquist, Janéa (R-13)

Sen. Honeyford, Jim (R-15)

Sen. King, Curtis (R-14)

Sen. McCaslin, Bob (R-4)

Sen. Morton, Bob (R-7)

Sen. Parlette, Linda Evans (R-12)

Sen. Pflug, Cheryl (R-5)

Sen. Roach, Pam (R-31)

Sen. Schoesler, Mark (R-9)

Sen. Spanel, Harriet (D-40)

Sen. Stevens, Val (R-39)

Sen. Zarelli, Joseph (R-18)

Rep. Chandler, Bruce (R-15)

Del. Franklin, Benjamin (PA)

Del. Hamilton, Alexander (NY)

Del. Madison, James (VA)

Del. Washington, George (VA)

Sen. Berkey, Jean (D-38)

Sen. Brown, Lisa (D-3)

Sen. Eide, Tracey (D-30)

Sen. Fairley, Darlene (D-32)

Sen. Franklin, Rosa (D-29)

Sen. Fraser, Karen (D-22)

Sen. Hatfield, Brian (D-19)

Sen. Haugen, Mary Margaret (D-10)

Sen. Hobbs, Steve (D-44)

Sen. Jacobsen, Ken (D-46)

Sen. Kastama, Jim (D-25)

Sen. Kauffman, Claudia (D-47)

Sen. Keiser, Karen (D-33)

Sen. Kilmer, Derek (D-26)

Sen. Kline, Adam (D-37)

Sen. Kohl-Welles, Jeanne (D-36)

Sen. Marr, Chris (D-6)

Sen. McAuliffe, Rosemary (D-1)

Sen. McDermott, Joe (D-34)

Sen. Murray, Ed (D-43)

Sen. Oemig, Eric (D-45)

Sen. Prentice, Margarita (D-11)

Sen. Pridemore, Craig (D-49)

Sen. Rasmussen, Marilyn (D-2)

Sen. Regala, Debbie (D-27)

Sen. Rockefeller, Phil (D-23)

Sen. Sheldon, Tim (D-35)

Sen. Shin, Paull (D-21)

Sen. Tom, Rodney (D-48)

Sen. Weinstein, Brian (D-41)

Rep. Appleton, Sherry (D-23)

Rep. Armstrong, Mike (R-12)

Rep. Campbell, Tom (R-2)

Rep. Chase, Maralyn (D-32)

Rep. Darneille, Jeannie (D-27)

Rep. Hankins, Shirley (R-8)

Rep. Hasegawa, Bob (D-11)

Rep. Hunt, Sam (D-22)

Rep. Jarrett, Fred (D-41)

Rep. Kretz, Joel (R-7)

Rep. Liias, Marko (D-21)

Rep. Miloscia, Mark (D-30)

Rep. O’Brien, Al (D-1)

Rep. Ormsby, Timm (D-3)

Rep. Roberts, Mary Helen (D-21)

OpponentsSupporters

Senator positions based on the floor vote on SSB 5628, February 18, 2008. Representative positions based on sponsorship of HB 1750 and the House Bill Report on HB1750 prepared by the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs during the 2008 Legislative Session. The positions of selected Constitutional Convention Delegates inferred from their signatures on and support for the Constitution of the United States.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE How to Elect a President

ow are presidents elected? Many Americans don’t really know, an ignorance that threatens one of

our most unique and important political processes.The Framers of the U.S. Constitution created the

Electoral College only after considering several other proposals for selecting the President. They declined to give the power to Congress or the state legislatures for fear of corrupt bargaining between elected officials. They rejected election by the national popular vote for multiple reasons, including concern that large states or powerful organizations might control the outcome. Instead, they compromised and created a system that has become a fundamental support to American liberty.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors who meet in their states and vote for president and vice president. Each state has the same number of electors as its total number of Representatives plus its two Senators; the District of Columbia has three. It takes a majority—the votes of 270 of the 538 electors—to win the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority, the decision goes the House of Representatives.

Today, state political parties nominate slates of electors who pledge to support the party’s presidential candidate. The party’s slate is elected if the party’s presidential candidate wins the statewide popular vote. Only two states are exceptions to this “winner-takes-all” system. In Nebraska and Maine, one elector is elected in each congressional district and the remaining two are elected based on the statewide vote.

If the purpose of government is upholding justice and safeguarding liberty, the Electoral College has done America proud. The system moderates American politics and protects minority rights. If the purpose of government is not liberty and justice, but simply enforcing the will of the majority, the Electoral College is in question.

An Electoral College tie in 1800 and lack of a majority in 1824 left the House of Representatives to elect the president (Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, respectively). The House also settled a decisive dispute over electors in 1876, giving victory to Rutherford B. Hayes against a possible popular vote majority for Samuel J. Tilden. In 1888 and again in 2000, the Electoral College winner had slightly fewer popular votes than his opponent, though neither received a majority.

Based on the assumption that enforcing majority will is the only purpose of government, a group called “National Popular Vote” is attempting to nullify the Electoral College. Rather than proceed through the constitutional amendment process—the appropriate venue for such a challenge—the group wants state legislatures to award their state’s electoral votes to whoever wins the most popular votes nationwide. Their legislation would take effect if passed by states representing a majority of Electoral College votes. So far, Hawaii, Illinois, New

Jersey, and Maryland have adopted National Popular Vote legislation.

The trouble is, nothing is gained and much may be lost by altering our system for electing presidents.

The Electoral College moderates and stabilizes American politics. It forces presidential campaigns to focus on the most politically balanced states rather than simply “preaching to the choir” where they have strong support. Candidates are compelled to spend their time and resources in a group of “battleground states” that represent America’s moderate middle rather than the political extremes. This group of key states changes over time and is remarkably diverse—in 2004, battlegrounds included Florida, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.

Under a national popular vote system, candidates would spend more time trying to drive up their support in areas where they already hold a commanding lead. Rather than building coalitions that transcend state and regional boundaries, candidates could focus on winning massive margins in their home state and a few other large states. Over time, politics could easily become more regional, less diverse and more extreme.

A national popular vote scheme would enhance the power of big cities at the expense of small town America. Campaigning in metropolitan areas is already cheaper, but without the Electoral College, candidates would be foolish to venture beyond the suburbs. The current system draws candidates out of the cities and into the small towns and whistle-stops within targeted states.

The Electoral College also makes elections more reliable and secure. Under a national popular vote system, a close election could require a nation-wide recount. If the raw vote total was all that mattered, vote fraud anywhere in the country could be decisive. With the Electoral College, a corrupt big city political machine can only steal a presidential election in the unlikely and unpredictable event that its state electors become decisive to the electoral vote outcome.

Through 55 presidential elections, the Electoral College has not only withstood the intensities of political contests, it has helped to stabilize the ship of state. In his

Farewell Address, George Washington warned against attempts to change the Constitution based on “mere hypotheses and opinion.” He counseled that “experience is the surest standard” when considering constitutional changes. Those words of America’s first president weigh heavily in favor of the preservation of the Electoral College.

ouR ElECToRAl CollEGE

vERsus

ThE NATIoNAl PoPulAR voTE

by Trent England

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the presidency even though the

incumbent, Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote. Harrison received

233 votes in the Electoral College from narrow victories in states

across the North and West. Cleveland won the South, with over 70%

of the votes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia and 82% in South

Carolina. He received 168 electoral votes. Four years later, Cleveland

defeated Harrison in both the Electoral College and the popular vote

and became the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

Benjamin Harrison Grover Cleveland

H

HISTORY SHOWS HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE STABILIZES THE SYSTEM

8 LIVING LIBERTY

by Ryan BedfordTaxpayer-funded campaigns, two wolves and the lamb of liberty

A

ummer is here. For most of us that means travel, fun and a well-earned sunburn or two.

For legislative candidates, summer is the kick-off for campaign season. While you and I might grow bleary-eyed at the thought (and believe me, I do), the state elections in November likely will affect our lives more tangibly than the presidential race.

The legislature has broad law-making powers—“plenary” as our Supreme Court has ruled—despite what our state constitution says.

Though we might prefer to be left alone with our summer fun (and believe me, I would) the legislative candidates we elect in November will affect this and many other aspects of our lives.

For example, this session the legislature passed an extremely comprehensive climate change bill that, in effect, grants the state the power to tell us where we will work, where we will live, what size vehicle we will drive and how much electricity we will use.

The legislature also passed a bill requiring the 13 goals of the Growth Management Act (or the No Growth, No Property Rights Act as I like to call it) to be viewed in light of climate change. What exactly does that mean and what are the economic consequences? Your guess is as good as mine. The legislature can’t tell us, but it sure looked good on paper.

Legislative meddling in our lives doesn’t stop there. In 2007, legislators passed a law that placed a moratorium on building new coal plants and forbade purchasing power from any facility that pumps out more emissions than a natural gas-fueled plant. The law caused the rejection of a $1.5 billion coal-gasification power plant submitted by Energy Northwest, despite our state’s growing energy needs. Rejections of this kind could result in price increases and even blackouts.

Of course, there are legislators who voted against these and other economically suspect bills, but they are outnumbered.

Even many well-meaning legislators are stumped on what to do about problems like the budget deficit.

The good news is that there is a solution, and the best part is that it requires no tax increases.

It’s called Priorities of Government (POG). We’ve been talking about it for years. If you were a Washington resident when Governor Locke was in office, you’ll probably remember it.

n old saying often attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb vot-

ing on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Politicians know this and fear. For lambs (voters) destined for the dinner table do not balk when asked to open their pocketbooks and kick the wolves out of office.

Today, King County politicians are trying to disarm voters. In the name of “clean elections,” they are explor-ing whether or not to implement taxpayer-funded cam-paigns, a form of welfare for politicians.

Taxpayer-funded campaign programs are fundamen-tally unsound. The Founding Fathers mandated that any limitation on free speech must be outweighed by a com-pelling government interest (nearly a life and death in-terest). Yet in everything, advocates dismiss the funda-mental truth that the constitutionally protected right of free political speech cannot be impinged upon without injuring the sovereignty of the people and their liberties. But that may be their intent.

Back in 1992, Washington voters banned taxpayer-funded campaigns when they overwhelmingly passed I-134. Disregarding voices of caution and secure in the knowledge that they had the votes, though, Democratic legislators arrogantly overturned the will of the people this past legislative session. Today, King County politi-cians are first in line to try the idea on for size.

Taxpayer-funded campaign programs are few and far between. Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina and Vermont have differing forms of taxpayer-funded campaigns as well as Albuquerque, San Francisco and Portland. Ad-vocates of these programs flippantly spout sound bites ignoring the fatal assumptions on which so many of their arguments rely. They argue that taxpayer-funded campaigns 1) foster more “grass roots” participation; 2)

lessen the influence of special interest groups; 3) help more challengers to unseat incumbents; 4) permit can-didates to spend more time meeting with voters than fundraising; 5) eliminate negative campaigning; and 6) ensure that fundraising does not prohibit candidates from running for office.

In almost every case, though, few, if any, of these ben-efits materialize. Taxpayer-funded campaigns also iso-late candidates from voters by essentially banning them from contributing to favored candidates. Also, the re-viled special interests simply find different ways to ex-ert their influence. In many cases, few “non-traditional” candidates participate. Those that do often fail because the programs tilt campaigns in favor of incumbents by prohibiting challengers from raising extra funds to over-come the incumbent’s name recognition—in Arizona, incumbency reelection rates remain near 100 percent. Furthermore, the complex regulations deter ordinary citizens from throwing their hat into the ring. Port-land’s most well-known “non-traditional” candidate is not known for her victorious campaign, but for her catastrophic failure. Emilie Boyles, a single mother, owes the campaign funding program the $144,905 she received as well as $14,000 in penalties (among other things, she paid her her daughter $15,000 for internet marketing.).

Portland’s program has been rife with corruption and bad publicity. Visceral and personal attacks have be-come commonplace as equally-funded candidates seek an advantage over the others. Rather than modeling ev-erything good about the program, many of the non-tra-ditional candidates have undermined the public’s con-fidence in the program. Improprieties and questionable pay practices have served to make taxpayers defensive about how their funds are being spent. The program, implemented by the Portland City Council, is due for a

ratification vote next year and critics are projecting the program will go down in flames. So how does King County’s proposal compare with Portland’s?

On its face, King County’s propos-al has significant faults, even com-pared to Portland’s failing system, and leaves many questions unanswered. The proposal does not address independent or in-kind contributions. Nor does it require all unspent taxpayer funds to be re-turned at the conclusion of a campaign. Furthermore, the proposal does not even mention “rescue” funds—a significant omission because rescue funds are the bully-pulpit taxpayer-funded campaign programs use to force candidates to conform. When non-participating candi-dates raise money above the expenditure limit participat-ing candidates must adhere to, the programs distribute “rescue” funds to participating candidates to level the playing field. In many systems, these rescue funds are unlimited. In a few, such as Portland’s, a cap is placed on the funds so as not to bankrupt the system.

The very fact that taxpayer funding schemes cannot ban unregulated voluntary contributions is a testimony to the inherent justness of unregulated campaign funding, and to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ protection of free speech. But liberty and justice must be guarded with vigilance. “To sit home, read one’s favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men doing,” said Teddy Roosevelt. Yes, it is easy to sit and read this article, scoffing at the foolish ideas of Councilman Ferguson and other “clean election” advocates. But you are now well armed to act in the defense of liberty and contest the vote. Now let them have it.

by Amber GunnCalling all legislative candidates: Bring back Priorities of Government

S

Budgeting using POG

Continued on page 9

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

ecently a King County resident shared with me her experience of obtaining a “Food Handler’s

Card” she needed in order to help run a volunteer soup kitchen. To get the card the county public health depart-ment required her to pay $10, attend a 1½-hour class, pass a 32-question multiple choice exam and show her photo ID.

And that’s just one of many examples I’ve heard about the prevalence of photo ID requirements, both by government and private businesses. If requiring photo ID is reasonable to secure so many commonplace transactions, doesn’t it make sense that it’s also one of the easiest and most reasonable means to protect voting, the process by which we select our leaders?

Based on a ruling handed down on April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court thinks so.

Since the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, states have been working to improve the accuracy and integrity of elections. Many have included a voter ID requirement as part of that upgrade, to the consternation of the Democratic Party and liberal special interest groups. While they have filed lawsuits across the country, matters came to a head in 2005 when Indiana enacted a law requiring poll voters to show photo ID. The state Democratic Party, the NAACP and others quickly challenged the law, alleging it unconstitutionally burdened the poor, elderly and minorities who were less likely to have photo ID.

But they could show little evidence of this, using data so misleading the federal district court judge called their expert’s report “utterly incredible and unreliable.” Unsurprisingly, they lost at the district level, then again in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court accepted the case last fall and heard oral arguments in January.

We filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Indiana, arguing that states’ have a strong interest in deterring vote fraud and improving voter confidence with security measures like photo ID. We used Washington as an example of what can happen when there is no election integrity, including the freefall in voter confidence after the 2004 election.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld Indiana’s law and agreed with our reasoning. Justice John Paul Stevens, who usually sides with his liberal colleagues on the bench, wrote the controlling opinion. He found Indiana’s interests in deterring fraud and improving voter confidence to be valid and justifiable. On the other hand, the very thin evidence of disenfranchisement presented

by the challengers wasn’t enough to “conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, while Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer dissented.

While the Court’s decision does leave some wiggle room for future cases based on better evidence, its clear message on the validity of state interests in preventing vote fraud and improving confidence will make it much harder for liberal groups to continue their crusade against election security laws.

What’s the impact of the Court’s decision on Washington state?

When reading about Indiana’s decisive win in the Supreme Court, the first question that comes to mind is, “How does this impact Washington state?” With virtually no polling places left, an Indiana-type law would do little to improve our elections.

Despite that difference, the Court’s decision still can have great impact on our state. Some of our state’s most needed reforms (like requiring proof of citizenship for registration) have been hindered because of a well-founded fear of litigation. You may remember the case Washington lost in 2006 when a federal district judge struck down a voter registration security law. That lawsuit was filed by the liberal Brennan Center for

Justice (who also opposed Indiana’s law) and forces the state to register anyone, even if their identity can’t be verified with a drivers’ license or Social Security record. If this Supreme Court decision had preceded that case, the outcome here may well have been different.

Right now there’s a case pending in Arizona over the constitutionality of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote (again, filed by liberal special interest groups). Secretary of State Sam Reed publicly has cited that case as the reason he is reluctant to push a similar law in Washington, but now the Supreme Court’s ruling greatly improves Arizona’s chances of success.

In past legislative sessions Senator Linda Parlette, Representative Bruce Chandler and others have advocated photo ID requirements and similar protections for mail ballots and voter registrations. This Supreme Court decision will help them gain traction. EFF has put together a list of needed election reforms, available on our website at www.effwa.org/vip.

We the people are the sovereigns of the state, and we must not let our impact at the ballot box be diluted by illegal votes and inaccurate data.

Washington became a poster child for the budget revolution in 2003. Facing a potential budget shortfall of more than $2 billion and realizing that tax increases were politically unacceptable, Governor Locke and his staff used the POG approach to pull our state out of the red ink. Lawmakers passed a balanced budget within existing priorities and without drastic cuts.

Amazing what a little prioritization will do. So how does the POG approach differ from

conventional thinking? Conventional thinking says lawmakers must adjust the current budget for inflation, add caseload increases, splice in a few new initiatives, and call it good for another legislative session. This is exactly the approach that got us into the $2.5 billion hole we face today.

If revenue drops, the same conventional thinking allows for three budget balancing options: 1) raise taxes; 2) cut important services; or 3) a combination of both.

When budgets are built in this manner, without deliberative efforts to develop core governing principles first, legislators become “enablers” for agencies and programs that likely have fundamental design flaws, or that may be providing services in direct conflict with lawmakers’ policy values.

Even when agencies or programs “accidentally” comply with what lawmakers would choose as their core governing principles, building budgets the conventional way virtually guarantees an upward spending spiral.

The POG approach asks the right questions, provides a logical process for determining the answers and prioritizes spending accordingly. It provides a sensible place to begin meaningful debate by asking four basic questions:1. How much money does the state have?2. What does the state want to accomplish?3. How will the state measure its progress in accom-

plishing those goals?4. What is the most effective way to accomplish the

state’s goals with the money available?Cash-strapped states like Washington will find that

the POG process greatly increases spending efficiency and economy. But for a model like POG to work, it must be applied to the entire budget, not only the carefully selected, politically manageable portions.

If, in addition to the POG process, independent, comprehensive performance audits are part of the normal

legislative procedure, accountability to taxpayers can be more readily assured.

When deciding the core functions of government, the following questions should be asked:• Is this a proper function of government, or is it best

left to the individual (family) or charitable organiza-tion?

• If intervention is necessary, is it best left to local gov-ernment which is closer to the people?

• Does it further increase taxes, regulations or the size of government? If so, is this justified?

Many lawmakers are unwilling to determine core functions of government because 1) it is hard work and may take years to get right; 2) fierce philosophical battles must be waged with the end result being a compromise that may please no one; and 3) most lobbyists and other special interests hate it (because it’s new and less pliable once adopted).

Still, the ultimate responsibility of lawmakers is to look taxpayers in the eye and honestly report to them that government is functioning excellently within its boundaries and its means. Starting the governing process with sound core principles makes this possible.

by Jonathan Bechtlevictory! u.s. supreme Court upholds Election security

R

Now what, Sam Reed?Dear Secretary Reed: You’ve made many changes to add convenience to our voting system, from Internet registration to vote-by-mail. But what about making it more secure? Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear states can safely enact reasonable secu-rity laws, what will you do?

How about the security gap in our registration database that allows non-citizens to vote undetected? Will you request the legislature to close that gap by requiring

proof of citizenship? What about beefing up our state’s voter ID law, so that it’s not so easy to register dogs to vote? How about improving mail ballot security by prohibiting insecure practices, like ballot forwarding, and looking for better methods of ID than just signature verification?

The federal courts aren’t holding you back any more. The time has come, Secretary Reed, to safeguard the integrity of Washington state elections.

Priorities of Government Continued from page 8 . . .

10 LIVING LIBERTY

by Sonya JonesTeachers unions Prohibit Educational opportunities

T

espite increasing ferry fares 80 percent since 2000 and gobbling up something like 25 percent

of the Department of Transportation’s annual budget, the Washington State Ferry (WSF) system is seeking yet another new tax to subsidize its poor performance.

Lawmakers of the State Transportation Commission have authorized a transportation consulting firm to study future taxing options that will be presented to legislators next session. A new regional Puget Sound taxing district is the likely result, with a property tax levy topping the list of options.

The problem is that WSF has a history chock-full of waste, mismanagement and indecision.

A September 2007 state performance audit of WSF was anything but flattering. The audit identified an opportunity for an estimated $100 million in cost savings over ten years. Much of the savings ($96 million) were derived from a simple solution—match ferry schedules to traffic volumes and demand.

This means running more ferries during the busy times (i.e. rush hour), and reducing service runs during the lulls. In short, the ferry system needs to apply some common sense supply and demand economic principles to its operations plan.

WSF’s most recent report to the governor, however, showed little progress in this area. The agency improved in only one major cost savings area—reducing overtime charges to certain ferry maintenance employees. While this accounts for nearly five percent of cost savings, basic adjustments to ferry schedules would go a long way to achieving the $10 million in possible annual savings.

Meanwhile, a March 2008 financial audit gave the ferry system a passing grade for the first time in twenty-one years. It focused on the ability (or inability in this case) of WSF to answer basic questions such as: How many tickets were sold? How much revenue was collected?

WSF was unable to answer those questions for the last twenty years.

While it’s nice to see WSF making progress, its twenty-year stint of failures demonstrates a lack of respect for valuable and scarce public resources. The various legislatures charged with oversight of the agency during that period also failed dismally.

If WSF cannot answer basic questions about its most vital revenue stream twenty out of twenty-one times, what makes legislators think WSF officials will put new tax revenues to good use?

WSF has also shown a complete inability to manage tax dollars. Three months after the 2008 session adjourned, WSF scrapped its plans for three small ferries in favor of two larger ferries for the Port Townsend to Keystone run. The larger ferries require twice the amount of fuel and crew to operate as well as expensive retrofits. Just how much those retrofits will cost is anybody’s guess. DOT couldn’t give us an answer when we asked.

This is not the first time WSF has demonstrated indecision and incompetence when it comes to building new ferries. DOT has spent seven years and more than $50 million on the design and equipment for ferries the legislature told them to build in 2001. We don’t know exactly how much they’ve spent because DOT can’t

account for it. Worse yet, despite all that time and money, construction has still not even started!

J.M. Martinac, one of only two shipyards qualified to build Washington ferries thanks to our state’s monopolistic regulations, told the legislature last year that DOT has created “the Bermuda Triangle of budgets, where money disappears and ships are never seen.”

Indeed. Why hasn’t DOT started construction on the ferries the legislature told them to build in 2001? Exactly how much money has DOT spent already for these non-existent ships? Where has the money gone? Why is DOT being allowed to repeat its indecision and mistakes all over again with the Port Townsend to Keystone ferry replacements?

Why is the legislature continuing to believe an agency that has cost taxpayers millions needlessly, that for two decades couldn’t keep track of ticket sale revenue, and that has been unable to deliver what the legislature requested seven years ago despite ample funding?

The legislature must get control of this situation, starting with asking the right questions and demanding answers.

Agencies are entrusted with precious resources and are responsible for managing them in an efficient and effective manner. Lawmakers are charged with oversight of these agencies and to ensure the responsible, transparent use of public resources.

And as for the rest of us, it’s time we hold our lawmakers accountable.

eachers unions exist to employ teachers. They have no interest in providing for enhanced edu-

cational opportunities because, after all, that has noth-ing to do with union membership and mandatory dues which allow them to flex political muscle.

Nothing better demonstrates this truth than the story unfolding about the private grant Washington public schools sacrificed because the union stranglehold simply will not allow for it.

The Dallas-based National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) awarded grants to 7 states to fund Advanced Placement programs in math and science, including one for $13.2 million to Washington. Such programs allow high school students to gain college credit while still in high school. Franklin and West Seattle high schools in Seattle, Evergreen and Union high schools in Vancouver, and three high schools in Spokane will lose that money because Washington law won’t allow them to have it.

The problem? NMSI wanted to pay the money directly to participating teachers, but Washington state law mandating collective bargaining (between unions and school districts) for any compensation to teachers would not allow for such a pay scheme. A full 22% of the $13.2 million, or $2,640,000, was to be paid directly to teachers who participated, including extra incentive pay for those whose students performed the best on the Advanced Placement exams.

Rich Wood, spokesman for the Washington Education Association teacher union, said: “Some outside group can’t impose a new system of pay on teachers. That’s just not the way that schools work in our state.”

Mr. Wood is ignoring the obvious. No party in this scenario was attempting to modify the way teachers are currently paid. No party was suggesting that teachers be paid differently from this point forward. A party wanted to provide incentive pay for teachers who take on extra responsibility and produce good results. Mr. Wood is right about one thing: that’s just not the way schools work in this state.

In response, Rep. Bill Fromhold (D-Vancouver), said “We worked hard to try to find middle ground…we got caught in the middle of the grant requirements and the collective bargaining laws in the state of Washington that have to be followed.” He also added that he didn’t want to place blame on either side.

Why not? The teachers unions are the ones who supported the legislation that enables them to control the negotiation process for teachers’ contracts including methods of compensation. The lack of flexibility in the law, promoted by the unions so that they maintain all of the power, is the problem.

(Rep. Fromhold probably doesn’t want to blame the unions because he has received in excess of $2,800 in campaign contributions from teachers unions and their PACs since 2006, but I digress.)

So, let’s review: Private money in lieu of taxpayer dollars to promote educational opportunities and reward good results. Students win. Taxpayers win. Teachers win. Parents win. Insert the unyielding power of the Washington Education Association, and we all lose.

But, it is gone right now. Union arrogance and legislative ignorance are working hand-in-glove to deny our kids any opportunity to excel.

The legislative majority receives large amounts of campaign contributions from the teachers unions and their related political action committees. The legislative majority passes laws that allow collective bargaining negotiations for public employees to remain closed to the public, so the public will never know the contents of those meetings even though the taxpayer pays for the contracts.

On KVI radio’s John Carlson Show, Mary Lindquist of the Washington Education Association repeatedly responded to callers that the decisions about teacher pay need to be handled locally, that parents needed to have a say. If that’s truly what she and the Washington Education Association believe, then why have they made repeated, successful efforts to block model legislation that would open collective bargaining for public employees to the public?

The WEA cares only about union dues. WEA couldn’t care less about the kids. This is all about power, political influence and stuff teachers really don’t support.

Isn’t it about time the teachers and parents took control of education again?

By the way, that $13.2 million grant was far more than the $1.7 million in taxpayer monies approved by the 2008 legislature to translate the math and science portions of the WASL into six languages. I wonder which would provide better results.

by Amber Gunn and Brian ZapotockyPuget sound ferry tax on the horizon

D

“No party in this scenario was attempting

to modify the way teachers are currently

paid. No party was suggesting that

teachers be paid differently from this

point forward. A party wanted to provide

incentive pay for teachers who take on extra

responsibility and produce good results.

Mr. Wood is right about one thing: that’s just not the way schools work in this state.”

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 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 $

Next Episode: Thursday, June 26, 2008

Topic: The Role of Government and Taxes

Special Guest: Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

Freedom Matters will be broadcast live the fourth Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. from EFF’s Media Studio in Olympia, Washington. For more information, please contact Juliana McMahan, Citizen Action Network Director, at JMcMahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482 or visit our website at www.FreedomMatters.tv.

• Linktowatchlivepro-gram (available the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m.)

• Archivedshows• TVscheduleforlocalcom-

munity access channels• Moreinformation

Please visit our website at www.FreedomMatters.tv for:

Current Episode Available Online Originally broadcast on Thursday, May 22, 2008Topic: Education in Washington State

Free

dom

Mat

tersThe overall problem with public-sector

growth is that governments redistrib-ute wealth in lieu of creating it. This is what economists call a “zero-sum game” where the one party’s gain is exactly matched by the other party’s loss. This means governments, large or small, negatively impact job growth and wealth creation.

State growth also competes with pri-vate growth, just as private businesses do with each other. The problem, especial-ly as illustrated by Thurston County, is that every facility occupied by a wealth-redistributing government could house a wealth-creating private business. In fact, the region’s economic viability is be-coming increasingly dependent on state government as its leading employer and landowner.

The opportunity costs of dollars lost to the state bureaucracy are high. When we allow government to claim an increasing share of our economic resources, we fore-go the benefits of other things that might have been done with those resources.

Markets weed out inefficient businesses that may be squandering scarce resources, but monopolistic governments are exempt from market punishments or rewards.

That is why it is in the public’s inter-est that governments provide only that which the private sector cannot and that it be limited, accountable and transparent.

As citizens, we must recognize the costs associated with an ever expanding state government. In the upcoming tight budget years, we can ill-afford to support a resource-gobbling bureaucracy.

Growth Estimates Continued from page 3 . . .

12 LIVING LIBERTY

At EFF, Change is the REAl thing.

uick—can you list the five rights named in the First Amendment?

If not, you have company. A 2006 survey found that only twenty-five percent of Americans can name more than one. Twenty percent of those polled actually thought the right to own a pet was protected. Yet more than half of these adults could name at least two characters from The Simpsons, a popular television cartoon. (By the way, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.)

Now think about this. If familiarity with the U.S. Constitution is lacking, awareness of the provisions of the state constitution is deplorable. This is unfortunate because state constitutions were originally intended to be the “first line of defense” for the protection of individual liberties. The federal constitution is one of limited powers, and state constitutions often extend broader protections to citizens.

The first provision of the Washington Constitution declares: “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights” (Art. I § 1). It is important to note the constitution does not grant these rights to citizens, but recognizes the rights with the goal of protecting them.

When citizens are educated in the sources of their freedoms, and familiar with attempts in history to limit these freedoms, they are better equipped to recognize new encroachments. Our fundamental rights cannot be exercised or preserved, however, if we lose sight of them.

The state of Washington adopted its constitution in 1889 after 40 days of debate. Understanding the context of these debates is critical for citizens to properly safeguard their rights. Unfortunately, while minutes of the constitutional convention were recorded, a complete record of the proceedings does not exist. The delegates had secured the services of court reporters who kept a verbatim record of convention debates and speeches. When the legislature failed to appropriate payment for their services, the stenographers destroyed their notes.

In order to encourage and assist general awareness, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation is publishing To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article I, written by EFF attorneys. The reference guide is a section-by-section

review of convention debates, contemporary newspaper accounts of the convention, the delegates’ subsequent writings, and significant cases that have interpreted provisions within the constitution’s Declaration of Rights.

The Washington Constitution counsels us that a “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is

essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government” (Art. I § 32). This admonishment is appropriate not only for lawmakers and judges, but for all those who love liberty and seek to preserve it.

by Mike ReitzCelebrity Boxing: The simpsons vs. the Founding Fathers

Q

Jonathan Bechtle, J.D. & Michael Reitz, J.D.

Which provides greater protection for citizens—the U.S. Constitution or the Washington Constitution?

To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen’s Guide

“ The Evergreen Freedom Foundation should be commended for this clear guide to our Constitution, providing a concise reference guide which will enable Washington’s people, from whom the government derives its power, to guard their rights from future challenges.”

~Attorney General Rob McKenna

www.effwa.org www.libertylive.org

Now that’s refreshing!

...BECA

US

E

FR

EE

DO

M M

A T T E R S !

Retail price $9.95 Just $5 for EFF members.

Does the constitution grant individual rights, or merely recognize them?

What was the most contentious provision in the Washington Constitution?

Find the answers in this in-depth review of the Washington Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. This reference guide, written by Evergreen Freedom Foundation attorneys, provides a fresh look at our state’s founding document.

Order a copy today! | www.effwa.org