A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1CONGRESS CONSIDERS BUDGET DATABASE 4 JUDGE DEALS BLOW TO ELECTION SECURITY 11

LIVING LIBERTYSEPTEMBER 2006 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

Evergreen Freedom FoundationPO Box 552Olympia, WA 98507

Address service requested

WEA CASE UPDATE 7

E

Imagine a truly public education system.

lizabeth Scott was a single mother working three different jobs in the Seattle area when she decided

to teach her son Harrison at home. He was an energetic, hands-on learner who wasn’t responding well to long hours in kindergarten and after-school programs.

It occurred to Elizabeth one day that the paycheck from one of her jobs was equivalent to the tuition for one of Harry’s school programs, so she quit that job and dedicated the time to teaching him.

By the end of their fi rst month of home education, Harry was reading Dr. Seuss books aloud. Within six months he was reading the Little House on the Prairie series. Elizabeth tried to stay a step ahead of him and read him more challenging books at bed-time, but he was always catching up with her.

Today Harrison is a gregarious and articulate ten-year-old who reads at the 12th grade level. He recently earned a standing ovation when he spoke before a crowd of more than 400 at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s 15th Anniversary Gala. His topic: The importance of education.

Elizabeth met and married Paul four years ago, and they are now a family of fi ve, with 16-year-old Katherine and two-year-old Libby. Katherine attends pub-lic school and is preparing to start college early through the state’s Running Start program. Paul and Elizabeth plan to teach Libby at home, and are discovering that she is a more auditory learn-er. They will likely use a lot of songs and tapes in her education.

Harrison’s accomplishments are impressive for a boy his age. But Elizabeth didn’t decide to teach him at home because she discovered she had a protégé on her hands. She simply saw that his unique needs and abilities were not well served

in the educational setting he was in, so she gave him a better opportunity, and as a result, he is thriving.

In a state that considers education its paramount con-stitutional duty and spends an average of $10,000 per student in its K-12 public education system, there is no reason the best opportunities cannot be put within reach of all students.

This will require a change in thinking. If asked to de-scribe public education, most people today would tell you about their local public schools—an institution. But public education isn’t the same as public schools. A school is a delivery system. Public education is a mis-sion.

We all know children are unique and diverse in their interests, abilities and learning styles. Yet, strangely, most people acquiesce to the idea that one system of schooling, designed and operated by government, will meet the educational needs of all children.

It has not. It will not. It cannot.We need to be honest about the shortcomings in our

current system of public schools. For an average cost of more than $10,000 per student per year, Washington cit-izens get a public school system in which a majority of

“We all know children

are unique and diverse in

their interests, abilities

and learning styles. Yet,

strangely, most people

acquiesce to the idea that

one system of schooling,

owned and operated by

government, will meet the

educational needs of all

children.”

Continued on page 3

by Marsha Michaelis

2 LIVING LIBERTY

rmed with the power granted by Initiative 900, State Auditor Brian Sonntag is moving forward

with an ambitious schedule of performance audits to hold government accountable to Washington taxpay-ers. Part of that accountability effort includes commu-nicating with the public about what his offi ce is doing and how the performance audits are progressing. To help with this effort, the State Auditor’s Offi ce (SAO) launched a revamped performance audit website with details about his performance audit activities.

Visitors to the website will see a calendar of events, listing of audits in progress, employment opportuni-ties, weekly updates, and a soon-to-be added email sign-up for additional details.

Will the new Sam Reed please stand up?

345

6789

1011

12

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

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

VOLUME 16, Issue 9

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue3 LETTER FROM LYNN WE HAVE PROMISES TO KEEP

4 CONGRESS CONSIDERING SEARCHABLE BUDGET DATABASE STATE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SPENDING LIMIT LAWSUIT

5 PURSUING AN EDUCATION TO ESCAPE POVERTY FAMILIES ENSURE CHILDREN “THRIVE BY FIVE” 6 MERITS OF SCHOOL CHOICE UNAFFECTED BY STUDY THE $10,000 ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 7 WEA CASE UPDATE

8 RULING CLEARS WAY FOR UNION ACCOUNTABILITY GIVE ALL STATE EMPLOYEES A VOTE ON THEIR CONTRACT 9 GREGOIRE’S $50 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIEN BILL PRINCIPLED OR HYPOCRITICAL? LEGISLATURE MUST HOLD HEARINGS ON MEDICAID AUDIT EFF STAFF ADDRESS KEY AUDIENCES ON ELECTION REFORM

10 CHARITABLE FUNDS AND MATCHING GIFTS

11 ELECTED AUDITOR PROPOSAL MAY GO TO KING COUNTY VOTERS IN 2009 BACK TO THE “HONOR SYSTEM” JUDGE DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO ELECTION SECURITY

12 WILL THE NEW SAM REED PLEASE STAND UP?

Pg. 12

“There’s no particular relationship between spending and educational results. Most education spending is actually

on salaries, and that’s allocated according to political muscle.”

– Peter Brimelow

Publisher:Booker StallworthEditors:Lynn HarshMarsha MichaelisLayout:Joel Sorrell

by Jason Mercier

A

State auditor launches new performance audit website

As of August, the following performance audits were underway: three reviewing the Department of Transportation, one looking into the state’s Ed-ucational Service Districts (K-12), and one study-ing Health Care Quality Assurance (at the request of Governor Gregoire). Many other performance audits are currently being planned.

EFF is working diligently to ensure that the au-thority granted by I-900 is not subject to the same lack of respect that so many of the people’s oth-er initiatives face from the legislature. The fi ght for government accountability did not end with I-900’s adoption. Now the real work begins—work EFF is actively engaged in on your behalf.

http://www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceAudit/default.asp

SAO’s Performance Audit Website:

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

We have promises to keepM y younger son left a message on my cell phone

last month explaining that some unexpected duty would prevent him from meeting me in the mid-dle of the afternoon on a Friday. His brother and I were heading toward Camp Pendleton to visit him for a few days.

When we fi nally caught up with each other, he ex-plained that he had been put in charge of making sure the Marines in his company started and completed a 24-mile march that hot California day... with 80 lb. packs on their backs.

I looked in disbelief at this tan, muscled young man sitting across the table from me. It was 10:00 at night, and he looked great! If I had been on that 24-mile march up and down those hills and valleys, my boys would have been visiting me in the emergency room!

He shrugged his shoulders about the unexpected duty and said it was an honor to lead “his men”; that it was part of his job. My mind fl ashed back to his brief ac-counting of the Fallujah battle that forever cemented in his mind the necessity for leadership, cooperation and fi erce loyalty to his soldiers. It was in that relentless des-ert that he learned to appreciate good leadership and to execute it himself.

Though they were unaware of it, that conversation with my sons provided me with “internal” information for a decision I had been asked to make about leadership here at EFF. For me, this decision also revolved around duty and honor.

It has to do with our succession plan. We are in year four of our six-year plan. It’s not that we expect anything dramatic to occur at the end of the six years, but we and our Trustees are committed to ensuring that EFF’s mission will be carried on with integrity and excellence when Bob and I are gone. That means we hire, retain and train excellent staff who become well seasoned and well known. This is occurring. We have crafted protec-tions for our investors’ money, particularly funds willed to us that will likely be used after Bob or I are not here. We are adding outstanding Trustees whose character and love of freedom are unquestioned.

By the fall of 2006, the plan called for us to have at least one staff person with the capacity to be Bob’s suc-cessor, even if that person wasn’t offi cially designated as such yet. Some months back, I was asked to consider that job. Initially, I resisted that idea, but the conversa-tions with my sons that weekend reminded me of the

am pleased to announce that the EFF Board of Trustees, on August 11, 2006, appointed Lynn Harsh as Chief Executive

Offi cer of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF). Lynn will provide leadership for EFF as we work to signifi cantly increase the depth and reach of our freedom message. She now assumes responsibility for overseeing all EFF operations, to include stra-tegic planning and oversight of the managers who execute our plans. She reports directly to EFF Trustees.

This is the next step toward implementing our succession plan. I will remain as EFF’s President. My duties will focus on external relations to include public speaking, meeting with members and development. I will mentor staff as needed.

Lynn and I are pleased with this change, as are our Trustees and staff. We believe it strengthens EFF and honors the many fi ne people who support this organization. This appointment and the staffi ng decisions we make over the next few years will be critical to ensuring successful leadership transition in the years to come.

I

duty I feel toward our country, this organization and the incredible people I am privileged to serve.

And there’s another very important matter. We have promises to keep: promises to our members and our in-vestors; promises to the next generation to fi ght on their behalf to restore freedom; promises to the movement of which we are part—a movement statists on the Left would love to fracture, neutralize or wear down.

So, when our Trustees decided I could properly lead EFF, it was done.

Besides, Bob’s not going anywhere, and he will con-tinue providing great counsel for all of us.

This is not a 24-mile march, and no evacuation is al-lowed. It’s not Fallujah; it’s the battle of our Revolution-ary ancestors. I’m not tanned and muscled anymore, but I’m pretty relentless. And I feel fi erce loyalty toward my colleagues, our members, and the ideals that birthed our country. I will do my best to serve you well.

Actually this is the promise all of us have made to you and others, and we intend to keep it.

students in every grade tested fail basic exams in reading, writing or math; one out of three drops out of school before graduation; and more than half who earn a diploma and go on to community college must take remedial courses in basic sub-jects. Many of our best teachers and administrators are deeply frus-trated and discouraged.

Our state is not delivering on its promise to provide all children with an opportunity to earn the ba-sic education necessary to success-

fully pursue and achieve their dreams. Parents who can afford alternatives to poorly performing public schools often vote with their feet; in Seattle, one out of four stu-dents attends a private school. But many parents are helpless to seek better alternatives.

This must change.Elizabeth Scott’s family knows the benefi ts of tailor-

ing education to meet the diverse needs of their chil-dren, but home education isn’t the best option for every family. That’s because there isn’t one best option; there are many. It’s time to allow parents to choose the educa-tional options that best meet the needs of each of their children, and to allow public education dollars to follow students to those venues.

Pictured: 10-year old EFF conference speaker Harrison Scott shares a moment with 2004 Gubenatorial candidate Dino Rossi while Mom (Elizabeth) looks on.

Imagine continued from page 1 . . .

4 LIVING LIBERTY

general fund. When enacting the death and cigarette taxes, the Legislature dedicated the revenue to an off-budget account.

Within hours of that ruling, the Attorney General fi led a request on behalf of the state with the Supreme Court to stay Allendoerfer’s ruling. A stay permits state of-fi cials to continue collecting the suspect taxes. EFF re-sponded with the concern that the state would argue against a refund, if Allendoerfer’s decision is upheld, because the money would have already been spent.

Attorney General Rob McKenna promised in his fi l-ing that the state “has not claimed and will not claim that the refund remedy would be unavailable if the taxes at issue ultimately are held invalid.”

very year the federal government buys about $500 billion in goods and services and gives an addi-

tional $500 billion in grants to individuals, businesses, non-profi t groups, and state and local governments. The details on this spending are buried deep within the fed-eral budget.

To hold government offi cials accountable for their spending priorities, citizens have a right to know who the government is giving our tax dollars to. Even with today’s technology, however, it often takes months of Freedom of Information Act requests to discover how much the federal government gives each year to a cor-poration, to a non-profi t organization, or to state and lo-cal governments.

Senate Bill 2590, the Federal Funding Accountabili-ty and Transparency (FAT) Act, would change that. It is co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of Senators in-cluding Tom Coburn, Barack Obama, Tom Carper, John McCain, John Sununu, and Jim DeMint. The FAT Act would require the President’s Administration to estab-lish a free website that would disclose “every recipient of federal grants, contracts, loans and other types of as-sistance,” said Sen. Coburn. “This would include how

ashington’s state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit concerning the legislature’s vio-

lation of the people’s tax and spending limit, Initiative I-601. The lawsuit was originally fi led last year by the “Save 601” coalition to protect the spending and tax limits imposed by I-601. The initiative was passed by voters in 1993 and restricts the rate at which the budget can grow. It also requires that any tax increase in excess of the limit be ratifi ed by voters before taking affect.

Joining EFF as plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were the Washington Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the Washington State Grange, the Building Industry Association of Wash-ington (BIAW), the Washington Association of REAL-TORS®, and Snohomish County taxpayer Steve Neigh-bors.

During the 2005 Legislative Session, lawmakers artifi -cially increased the spending and tax limits imposed by I-601 by engaging in a $250 million “merry-go-round” fund transfer among three state accounts. This enabled legislators to enact almost $1 billion in new spending and taxes—including a state-only death tax and new taxes on cigarettes, liquor, and extended warranties—without triggering a vote of the people.

On March 17, 2006, Snohomish County Judge James Allendoerfer ruled in favor of the “Save 601” coalition, fi nding the state’s 2005-07 budget violates the tax and expenditure limits. Allendoerfer ordered the spending limit reduced by $250 million and invalidated most of the tax increases until ratifi ed by a vote of the people.

The death and cigarette taxes survived on a technical-ity. I-601’s taxpayer protections apply only to the state’s

by Victor Joecks

E

Congress considering searchable budget database

much money was given and for what purpose, extending to subcontractors and subgrantees.”

The FAT Act would allow any citizen with an internet connection to access a database searchable by name, lo-cation, and amount of federal funds received. Knowing that a record of their spending choices will be readily available to the public may cause politicians to exhibit more fi scal responsibility. Regardless, voters will have the necessary information to make an informed decision in the next election.

Sen. McCain testifi ed that “OMB (Offi ce of Manage-ment and Budget) already maintains the data necessary for this website, and the technology clearly exists to implement the requirements of this bill.” Currently the Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Audit Clearinghouse, RAND Database of Research and De-velopment, and the National Endowment for the Arts all maintain online databases that provide some details about funding recipients.

The need for fi scal responsibility and accountability is not limited to politicians in Washington D.C. Washing-ton state citizens also have the right to know what orga-nizations and activities are being funded with their state

tax dollars. A state version of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act would allow state citizens, activists, bloggers, and po-litical organizations to examine the state budget.

The information needed to create the database should already be main-tained by the Offi ce of Financial Management. Wash-ington legislators should consider the authorization of a state FAT database, which would greatly increase the accountability and transparency in state government.

Budget transparency and disclosure go a long way to-ward preventing waste. Thomas Jefferson knew this in 1802 when he wrote, “We might hope to see the fi nanc-es of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to com-prehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”

S. 2590 would use modern technology to make Jeffer-son’s vision a reality.

by Jason Mercier

W

State Supreme Court to hear spending limit lawsuit

Your help needed Since the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, your help is needed. Tax-deductible contributions can be sent to EFF to help defray the cost of this legal challenge and to protect Washington’s tax and spending limit. Additional details on the lawsuit can be found at:

“We might hope to see the fi nances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

When the stay was granted by Su-preme Court Commissioner Geoffrey Crooks on May 25, 2006, Crooks said, “The State will be held to this promise.”

On July 20, 2006, in response to a motion for reconsideration, Judge Al-lendoerfer ordered an additional re-duction to the spending limit. If up-held by the state Supreme Court, this order could result in approximately $520 million in reduction to the state’s 2005-07 spending limit, potentially calling into ques-tion the state’s ability to spend more money in a 2007 supplemental budget.

In addition to considering whether the state violated I-601 and if the various taxes are null and void without a vote of the people, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on whether the Legislative and Executive branch-es can exempt themselves from public records disclo-sure. Though some of the budget records were ultimate-ly turned over to the “Save 601” coalition, most were withheld on the basis of “legislative” and “executive” privilege.

The budget records that were released were very damning for the state. As noted by KING 5 columnist Terry Corbell, “Claiming both executive and legislative privilege, the state tried to conceal a series of incrimi-nating emails. But the judge allowed some into evidence and ruled that the e-mails proved budget writers knew they were violating the intent of I-601. The e-mails plot-ted a scheme to shift funds in order to superfi cially in-fl ate the spending limit to avoid automatically trigger-ing a public vote on the tax increases.”

www.save601.org.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

ver the past few years, President George W. Bush, Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey,

and other high-profi le politicians and celebrities have helped focus national discussion and debate on the edu-cation crisis in America. A large portion of this dialogue centers on how to improve the overall academic perfor-mance of impoverished children.

In this great nation, everyone recognizes that educa-tion is the ticket out of poverty for all who pursue the opportunity. Unfortunately, far too many youth living in poverty are falling behind and dropping out of high school at a time when increased educational attainment is essential for future economic prosperity.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that many low income children are trapped in failing public schools that have no incentive to provide better educational ser-vices for their students. An equally important part of the problem is that too many teachers and other pub-lic school offi cials have extremely low expectations for these students based on their families’ low socioeco-nomic status.

While a troubled home environment, unsafe neighbor-hood, limited family resources, and other external fac-tors make it diffi cult for a child to pursue academic excel-lence, these factors can be overcome through sustained effort and an internal commitment to succeed. Parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens must effectively communicate to students that a lack of money and mate-rial possessions can lead to temporary anguish and dis-

comfort, but a lack of hope and hard work will lead to permanent poverty and despair.

American history is fi lled with numerous “rags to riches” stories that resulted from hard word, education, and a strong desire to be the best. More importantly, there are millions of ordinary Americans who grew up poor and destitute, but were able to attain successful middle class lives through their own drive and deter-mination.

Today, more than ever before in our history, the doors of opportunity and advancement are open and available to anyone with a dream in his heart and the willingness to make it come true.

Every year, millions of immigrants fl ock to this coun-try from every corner of the globe with little more than the shirt on their backs and a fi re in their bellies. They start off at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and quickly begin their rapid ascent, despite enduring pov-erty, language barriers, and other hardships. These immigrants succeed in America because they want a better life, and they do what is necessary to achieve it.

Obviously, many Americans living in poverty also want a better life for themselves and their children. Sadly, some see careers in professional sports and the entertainment industry as the only sure path out of their current condition. Although many students recognize the connection between education and high paying jobs, many focus less on those dreams as they encounter more academic frustration and apathy in higher grades.

he formation of Thrive by Five, the Washington Early Learning Fund, has demonstrated that early

childhood education is a top priority of government and business leaders in this state. These leaders have correctly determined that the interactions and experi-ences a child receives during the fi rst fi ve years of life are extremely important to the development of the cog-nitive, social, emotional, and language skills necessary for future academic achievement and subsequent eco-nomic success.

The founders and supporters of Thrive by Five, how-ever, have missed the mark in one key area. They seem to believe that the government and other social service providers must increase their role in early childhood development to ensure that children receive the qual-ity care and learning opportunities required for proper development. Our rich American history proves this assumption wrong.

Eighty years ago, parents raised their children with-out a lot of government involvement. Less than twenty years later, many of these teens and young adults would leave their homes and families behind to go off to war to fi ght for the freedom we cherish today. They are known

From kindergarten through high school, teachers, administrators, and others involved in public education must set high expectations for low-income students and their families. Economic hardship, family dysfunction, and other often cited excuses can no longer be consid-ered acceptable reasons for not putting forth the effort it takes to achieve academic success. These diffi cult con-ditions can be overcome if students and their families continuously strive to meet or exceed high education standards.

My life is but one of many examples of a child born into cyclical poverty who used education to break free and enter middle income America. With the strong sup-port and encouragement of a few loving teachers and family members, I was able to graduate high school and earn a degree at the United States Air Force Academy.

Each step of the way, I encountered challenges and experienced set backs, but I never lost sight of the fact that I could succeed because it was expected of me throughout my entire academic career.

If our public education system truly believes that all children can learn, it should stop lowering academic standards and start expecting low-income students to perform at the same level as their more privileged peers. When this is consistently done in all schools, our society will see an increased number of youth free themselves from the chains of poverty and become highly produc-tive citizens.

as the Greatest Generation, and their gallant efforts saved the world. Their parents were able to success-fully raise and educate these future heroes under the extremely diffi cult economic conditions caused by the Great Depression, without overly relying on govern-ment for support.

Although government agencies like the Department of Early Learning and non-profi t organizations like Thrive by Five have a part to play in our society’s cur-rent focus on early childhood development, they must not take the lead role. Parents are ultimately responsi-ble for their children’s growth and development; they should take the lead in ensuring that all infants and tod-dlers receive the quality care and early learning oppor-tunities required for school readiness.

Unfortunately, some adults are abdicating many of their parental responsibilities. In the past fi fty years, our society has witnessed a dramatic decrease in com-prehensive parental involvement in the lives of their children. Some say it is because both parents are too busy in the workforce struggling to make ends meet. Others point to the increase in single parent households due to a corresponding increase in divorce, out-of-wed-

lock births, and parental abandonment. While these reasons are defi nitely a large part of the problem, there is a small, yet growing reason that is easy to overlook.

Too many parents have relied more on the government and other outside entities to help raise their children, and less on their own efforts and abilities. As a result, these institutions have expanded their participation in the daily lives of families with children.

Until all parents fully embrace and assume their com-plete parental obligations, we will see more encroach-ments from the government and other institutions on family life.

All children need and deserve the best early childhood experiences that will enable them to thrive by fi ve. As the citizens of Washington State continue to move for-ward to make this a reality, we must keep in mind that parents are a child’s fi rst and best teachers. The govern-ment, non-profi t organizations, and other outside insti-tutions can assist parents in their vitally important role, but they cannot replace them.

by Harold M. Baker

O

by Harold M. Baker

T

Families ensure children “Thrive by Five”

“Unfortunately, far too many youth

living in poverty are falling behind

and dropping out of high school at

a time when increased education-

al attainment is essential for future

economic prosperity.”

to escape povertyPursuing an education

6 LIVING LIBERTY6 LIVING LIBERTY

recent study published by the U.S. Department of Education suggests average public and private

school performance may be about equal when student test data is weighted to account for demographic dif-ferences.

You can imagine the fl urry of response. Staunch advo-cates of public schools (like the teachers’ unions) claim the study as proof that public schools are doing a good job with public money and should get more. It’s just one more reason, they say, why parents should have to send their children to a public school if they want to use any of the public dollars allocated for education.

It’s questionable whether the study actually supports the conclusions being drawn by opponents of school choice (its own authors strongly caution against sweep-ing conclusions and other respected researchers have questioned the methodology). But even if it is true that average public and private schools are similar when it comes to academic performance, that’s no argument against school choice. If anything, it makes the case for change even stronger.

The truth is, many private schools do not post im-pressive student test scores. While the average private school performs signifi cantly better than the average

public school on the National Assessment of Education-al Progress, more than half of the students in the private schools measured are still failing to score profi cient in reading and math.

We can draw a couple of conclusions from this: First, since average private school tuition is half to a third the cost of public school, private schools are far more effi -

cient. Second, and much more importantly, we can con-clude that an excellent K-12 education is the exception in our country, not the rule. We need to change that.

We won’t change it by limiting educational options (as many in the public school establishment would like to do), but by vastly expanding them.

ou’ve heard it time and time again. The single greatest issue facing education in the state of

Washington is insuffi cient funding. What we need to improve the schools in this state is more money, smaller class sizes, and higher teacher pay.

In a variety of media, this is the conversation taking place about education. With only these options in play, it seems less like a conversation and more like an end-less torrent of begging. Regardless of the current levels of funding or school performance, the educational establish-ment keeps coming to the table to ask, “Please sir, may I have some more?” And the public generally obliges.

EFF recently commissioned a poll of 400 registered voters regarding public education attitudes in this state. The poll, conducted by Dresner, Wickers, and Associ-ates, shed signifi cant light on just how well the public is informed about education and its funding. Fifty-four percent of participants fi nd it either “very diffi cult” or “somewhat diffi cult” to understand the issues facing ed-ucation today.

A whopping 71 percent believed that not enough in-formation was given to the public to understand the is-sues facing education. In spite of this information gap, there seems to be some consensus regarding how to im-

prove things—a whopping 60 percent of partici-pants believed that schools are currently un-

der-funded. Only 7 percent believed that schools are over-funded.

When asked to estimate how much the state spends per K-12 pupil each year, only

12 percent of respondents guessed with-in $2,000 of the correct amount ($10,000).

More than a third of the respondents would not even venture a guess.

Since the highest percentage of survey participants said they get their information about their local school system from the newspaper, we decided to look over a year’s worth of newspaper articles about Washington state education to see what information is being present-ed. Over the course of six weeks, I reviewed and cata-logued nearly 500 articles from three different newspa-pers (Seattle Times, The Columbian, and Spokesman-Review), and the results were downright shocking.

Only 12 articles even partially mentioned per-pupil spending, citing fi gures such as the general fund portion or the funding provided by Initiative 728. Associated Press articles in the The Columbian informed readers of the per-pupil spending in Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, New Jersey, and the national average, but there was no such information about our own state. In fact, out of 489 educational articles in three different papers from op-posite sides of the state, not a single one mentioned total per-pupil spending in Washington state!

With such a crucial piece of information being virtual-ly ignored by the print media, is it any wonder the public thinks schools are under-funded? Without a public that is well-informed about the costs of education, there can be no real discussion about how to get the best value for our education dollars, nor can there be any talk of mean-ingful reforms within the present system. Glenn Bristol is a 2006 summer intern who worked in the Foundation’s Education Reform Center. He is cur-rently attending the University of Washington, where he will soon be earning a degree in political science.

“In fact, out of 489 educational

articles in three different papers from opposite

sides of the state, not a single one mentioned total

per-pupil spending in Washington state!”

Merits of school choice unaffected by studyby Marsha Michaelis

A

"...an excellent K-12 education is the exception in our country, not the rule. We need to change that. We won’t change it by limiting educational options..."

Today, 88 percent of the school-age children in our country attend public schools. Thus, one education pro-vider (government) controls 88 percent of the market.

Government’s huge market share has not been gained because consumers (parents and students) have careful-ly chosen its product over those offered by other provid-ers. Rather, they must pay for it whether they like it or not. For many that’s the only affordable option.

While wealthy parents can afford to pay for the best alternatives if their assigned public school is mediocre, many other parents are struggling. Some families can pull together enough to pay an average private school tuition (in addition to the taxes they pay for public schools), but their options are unfairly limited by gov-ernment.

Parents and students need educational options as di-verse as they are. They need the freedom to choose the education models and services that best meet their indi-vidual needs and abilities. They need a truly public edu-cation system in which public dollars follow students into those diverse education venues.

The debate over public and private schools should be left to parents, and parents should be empowered to make the choices that best serve their children.

by Glenn Bristol

Y

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

e are continuing our march toward the Supreme Court. EFF fi led an amicus curiae (“friend of

the court”) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to accept review of the Washington v. Wash-ington Education Association case. EFF was joined by a broad coalition, including the American Legisla-tive Exchange Council, the country’s largest, volun-tary association of state legislators, and many other state-based public policy organizations, to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Washing-ton ruling.

We are doing our best to encourage the Supreme Court to hear this important case. Between now and October (when the Court decides whether it will hear it), we will be speaking on television and radio, sending publications to lawmakers and teachers describing the case, and updating our website with teacher interviews and pointed parodies, explaining why the case is important in our state and across the nation.

WEA CASE UPDATEOur talented communications team has created a fl ash

game/presentation that challenges players to “try their luck at opting out of the union.” Named The Greatest Scam on Earth, the game features AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and NEA President Reg Weaver, who urge the gamer to try to opt-out of union dues. Sweeney and Weaver laugh at the player, while the “opt-out” icon keeps moving and circus music plays in the background. Eventually, the gamer is forced to “give up and pay.”

The game illustrates how the opt-out process is pro-hibitively diffi cult and confusing. Many workers sim-ply “give up and pay” out of frustration. Even if they are able to opt-out, they are still required to pay agency fees, which the union illegally uses on politics.

If you would like to help fund our campaign, please visit our website at www.effwa.org/contribute.

For more details on the case, visit www.teachers-vs-union.org. This new site provides all of the latest infor-mation, key documents, and teacher testimonials related to the case.

W

• A Billboard Truck at the NEA Convention

• A WEA Case Magazine and Informational CD-ROM

• A Case Website for Media: www.teachers-vs-union.org

• A Multi-media Flash and Video Teacher Profile Website

• An Interactive Game: “The Greatest Scam on Earth”

• A Web Video: “NEA Bosses: Heroes or Zeroes?”

• Union Hokey Pokey Web Flash

EFF’s marketing efforts include:

by Kristen Mercier

8 LIVING LIBERTY

Uby Michael Reitz, J.D.Ruling clears way for union accountability

nion offi cials may want to brush up on Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Lynne Truss’ seminal book

on punctuation. The placement of a comma in federal regulations led to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that requires labor unions to show some accountability and transparency for how they spend their members’ mon-ey—a crucial step in making Big Labor more respon-sive to its membership.

On August 1, Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg ruled the U.S. Department of Labor can require state affi liates of the National Education Association to provide detailed fi nancial records to members.

The federal Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-closure Act (LMRDA) requires labor organizations to annually fi le detailed reports, including information about staff salaries and benefi ts, income, and expen-ditures. Congress declared the law was “necessary to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations.”

In 2002, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao undertook a comprehensive effort to modernize regulations that had remained unchanged for 40 years. Union fi nancial re-ports are now posted online, rather than gathering dust in a Washington, D.C. basement.

Union members have benefi ted from a new era of union transparency. They have learned that labor orga-nizations use their dues for a host of things that have nothing to do with collective bargaining. For example, in 2005, organized labor spent $1.3 million on golf, $7.3 million at plush resorts, nearly $1.3 million for amuse-ment park events, and $641,000 for sporting events. Ironworkers Local 40 in New York spent $52,879 on a new Cadillac for a retiring president. SEIU Local 660 in Los Angeles spent $153,000 on movie tickets.

For the past four decades, federal disclosure require-ments applied only to unions that represented private sector employees. Unions that consisted wholly of gov-ernment employees, such as the Washington Educa-tion Association or the Washington Federation of State Employees, were exempt. As a result, millions of union members have no idea how union offi cials spend their dues.

Secretary Chao addressed this issue by requiring local and state public sector unions to also comply with the law if they are affi liated with a national union that falls under the Act. The implications of this change are enor-mous and will affect local unions in all 50 states.

by Michael Reitz, J.D.

T

Give all state employees a vote on their contract

he Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), the largest state employee union, will

not allow workers to vote on the 2007-09 collective bargaining agreement if they have not agreed to pay for the union’s political activity. These workers pay full collective bargaining dues. So why not give them a vote on their contract?

State employees who are covered by union bargain-ing are required to pay union dues. Those who ob-ject to the union’s political activism can become “fee payers.” Fee payers are classifi ed as nonmembers, and are entitled to a rebate of a portion of dues. They are still required, however, to pay more than 75 per-cent of full dues—supposedly their “fair share” for the union’s collective bargaining services.

During the 2005-07 contract negotiations, the state agreed to require dues as a condition of employment. In exchange, unions agreed to allow all affected state workers to vote on contract ratifi cation.

Unfortunately, the WFSE did a abysmal job publiciz-ing the vote. Only 6,133 of some 30,000 eligible employ-ees voted. Even Governor Chris Gregoire expressed con-cern about how the vote was handled. After the contract went into effect, six state employees were fi red for not

paying union dues. Hundreds of others were threatened with termination and paid dues only to keep their jobs.

The union is dropping all pretense of open participa-tion this year.

Fee payers will not be allowed to vote, despite the fact they already pay full collective bargaining dues. Some 7,000 workers covered by WFSE negotiations are fee payers (more workers, incidentally, than ratifi ed the original agreement).

Unions routinely describe ratifi cation votes as “inter-nal union business.”

Thirty-two affi liates of the National Education Asso-ciation, including the Washington Education Associa-tion, sued to avoid disclosure in 2003. In reviewing fed-eral regulations, the Court of Appeals spent three pages of a 19-page decision attempting to divine Congressio-nal intent in the placement of a comma. The issue was whether Congress meant to include state affi liates of na-tional unions in the defi nition of “labor organization,” and it was a lowly comma that sparked the question.

In the end, the court ruled the U.S. Department of La-bor did not exceed its authority by applying federal rules to state government unions. The Court also instruct-ed the Department of Labor to reissue its analysis for why the change was necessary. This process will likely require several months to complete.

This ruling brings organized labor a step in the right direc-tion. Washington state pub-lic employee’s collective bargaining agreements mandate union representa-tion for tens of thousands of public employees. These employees are forced to pay union dues as a con-dition of employment, but have little information about how their dues are spent.

Financial transparency is essen-tial to good stewardship. As a mat-ter of public policy, we give voters access to information about the fi nances of political candidates. Shareholders of corporations re-ceive regular fi nancial reports. But when union funds are mismanaged, union members are often unknowing vic-tims. Establishing fi nancial disclo-sure rules for labor organizations will ensure accountability to union shareholders and will reduce the potential for corruption.

Public employees cannot make informed decisions about the benefi t of union representation unless they know the details of the union’s income and expendi-tures.

Unions routinely argue against this level of account-ability to their members. The AFL-CIO objected to Sec-

retary Chao’s modernized reporting forms, claiming that compliance would cost organized labor over a billion dollars. In reality, as reported by National Review, the AFL-CIO spent only $54,000 for the bookkeep-ing and related expenses.

In Washington state, the effort to avoid accountability goes a step further. The Washing-ton Education Association actually argued in court that it had no fi duciary responsibility to the teachers it repre-sents. In other words, the union doesn’t have to account to its own members for how dues are spent.

“The placement of a comma in federal regulations led to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that requires labor unions to show some accountability and transparency for how they spend their members’

money”

Labor unions will continue to use and abuse their members as long as they are permitted to

operate in the shadows. Only accountability will breed the responsiveness the modern labor movement is in such dire need of recapturing, and Washington state can be a leader in this process.

The Washington Legislature need not wait for a feder-al directive. The American Legislative Exchange Coun-cil has state model legislation that mandates disclosure and would be happy to work with political leaders to introduce this legislation. If the legislature does noth-ing, however, the U.S. Department of Labor may soon require unions to open their books.

If only that were so. If association with the union were an internal matter, then the force of state law wouldn’t mandate that workers pay for union services. The state wouldn’t terminate those who refuse to pay.

As it is, the WFSE’s refusal to allow fee payers a vote on the contact is mean-spirited and vindictive. It penal-izes employees who prefer not to be cash cows for the union’s political machine.

Governor Gregoire’s negotiating team should insist that all workers deserve a vote on their contract. After all, they’re paying their “fair share.”

"ONLY 6,133 OF SOME 30,000 ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES VOTED. EVEN GOVERNOR CHRIS GREGOIRE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE VOTE WAS HANDLED."

PICTURED: PAT WOODWARD, LOST HER JOB FOR REFUSING TO PAY UNION DUES.

“Public employees cannot

make informed decisions

about the benefi t of union

representation unless

they know the details of

the union’s income and

expenditures.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

arlier this year the state auditor released the 2005 state audit of Washington’s Medicaid program.

Of 28 fi ndings, an astounding 18 were repeat violations from the previous year. In total, nearly $1 billion of $6.2 billion in Medicaid spending (all funds) was “ques-tioned” by the state auditor.

As if this situation wasn’t disturbing enough, seri-ous disagreements exist between the Offi ce of Finan-cial Management (OFM) and the State Auditor’s Offi ce (SAO) on just what the problems are.

On June 22, 2006, the state auditor sent the governor a letter indicating that “the amount of questioned costs as defi ned in federal regulations is being revised from the approximately $950 million we reported in our Medic-aid Accountability Report to approximately $80 mil-lion. . . I do think it is important you know that the $950 million reported earlier represents dollars at risk due to

Eby Jason MercierLegislature must hold hearings on medicaid audit

by Victor JoecksGregoire’s $50 million illegal alien bill: principled or hypocritical?

G overnor Christine Gregoire recently sent U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a bill for

$50 million—Washington’s cost of imprisoning crimi-nal illegal aliens in fi scal years 2005 and 2006. The gov-ernor demanded “the U.S. government fulfi ll its legal duty to reimburse Washington State taxpayers for the cost of carrying out this federal function.”

Although her rhetoric is tough, Gregoire’s invoice is largely symbolic, because the feds likely will not pay their bill. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has been sending the federal government a similar statement for over three years, but has not yet received any of the $270 million reimbursement she desired.

That said, the governor’s letter is worthy of praise. It’s about time Washington state requested the federal gov-ernment fulfi ll its obligation on this issue.

Now that Gregoire has pointed out the speck in the eye of the federal government, she should stop ignoring the plank in the state’s—the tens of millions of dollars Washington spends on illegals each year.

In Washington, illegal immigrants are eligible for driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, and worker’s compen-sation benefi ts. The state has also budgeted millions of

greater capacity to incarcerate all of its offenders.” With a limited number of beds, every spot that is taken by an illegal alien crowds out a state offender.

This is exactly what happens when Washington will-ingly offers other services to illegal aliens—fewer ser-vices are available for legal residents. In the case of university admissions and daycare spots, the parallels are especially striking. Ironically, illegals who receive a high school diploma or college degree are prohibited from legally obtaining employment due to their immi-grations status.

For the sake of state taxpayers, let’s hope Gregoire’s letter represents a principled epiphany on the unfairness of forcing taxpayers to provide state services to those violating federal law.

The governor’s response to the Medicaid audit and her 2007-09 budget proposal will show citizens what she truly believes. If she has implemented policies to stop the state from illegally providing Medicaid services to illegals and eliminated services for illegal aliens in her December budget proposal, citizens should applaud her for her principled and correct actions. If not, her hypoc-risy will be revealed.

dollars specifi cally for illegal aliens. Examples include $10 million in medical and dental care for illegal im-migrant children and $420,000 for illegal alien family planning services.

The state was also hard hit in its recent Medicaid audit. It was cited for spending $28 million on non-emergen-cy services for illegal aliens and $55 million on proce-dures for individuals without properly determining their immigration status. Not checking immigrant status is a convenient way to skirt Medicaid’s citizenship require-ment. In all, 15,890 illegal aliens received Medicaid in Washington in 2004, a nine percent increase from 2003 when 14,553 received services.

Because of these violations, the feds may penalize Washington by requiring the state to return $27 to $32 million. Unlike Gregoire’s bill to the feds, this one will most likely have to be paid.

Gregoire said in her letter to Gonzalez, “The DOC (Department of Corrections) does not have enough pris-on capacity to house all Washington inmates and as a result, must rent beds in other states. If the federal gov-ernment assumed its rightful responsibility to incar-cerate criminal illegal aliens, Washington would have

internal control and monitoring issues a the Medicaid Program.”

As a result of this, OFM believes the true problem is the $80 million reported in the federal report. SAO, however, stands by the $950 million in fi ndings from its original report. This disagreement may have profound impacts on what course of corrective action OFM plans to institute to correct any audit defi ciencies.

Seeing the disagreement between OFM and SAO, it’s not a surprise that some involved in the state’s Medicaid program have tried to “debunk” the auditor’s fi ndings.

One such attempt resulted in the auditor writing a let-ter to the editor of the Tacoma News Tribune on August 5, reading in-part: “Our Medicaid report issued earlier this year found weaknesses in eligibility determination and other systems that put about $900 million in public Medicaid dollars at risk of being spent on individuals or

procedures that are not eligible for these dollars. That fi nding still stands . . . Rather than continuing to try to ‘debunk’ our audit, I urge all of those concerned about our fi ndings to continue to work in a constructive man-ner, along with the governor, the state’s fi nancial man-agers and the secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services to ensure every precious Medicaid dol-lar reaches its intended target.”

As a result of the misdirected efforts to “debunk” the Medicaid audit, it is critical that the disagreement be-tween OFM and SAO be resolved. This is why the Leg-islature can no longer abdicate its oversight responsibil-ity and must immediately hold public hearings on the state’s Medicaid audit and any corrective action neces-sary. Delay only serves to worsen any divide that may exist and calls into question the state’s commitment to resolve audit fi ndings.

any Washingtonians are frustrated about the lack of integrity in our election system, but of-

ten aren’t sure of the cause or of how to fi x the problems. One of the primary goals of EFF’s Voter Integrity Proj-ect is to provide answers to these questions, and speak-ing to public groups is one of the ways we accomplish this goal.

With the fall elections looming on the horizon, several opportunities have arisen for EFF staff to speak with key audiences of legislators and citizens about the sta-tus of election security in Washington and in the United States.

In mid-July Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, was invited to brief the Ameri-can Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC’s) Elec-tion Reform Task Force. He was joined by John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist and frequent speaker on election security issues. Bob briefed the Task Force on the latest efforts around the country to combat election fraud, both from state legislatures and law enforcement. He presented a list of recommendations for the attend-ing legislators to introduce in their respective states, including requirements for photo ID, proof of citizen-

ship, increased mail ballot security, and proof of eligibility for voter regis-tration. Williams’ report included up-dates on states that are implementing these reforms, as well as lawsuits af-fecting election security.

John Fund and Mississippi Repre-sentative William Denny, Chairman of the Task Force, praised EFF’s work on election integ-rity and urged all ALEC members to obtain a copy of Blueprint for Change, EFF’s report on needed election reforms. Williams will continue to act as an advisor to ALEC on election security issues.

In August, Jonathan Bechtle, director of the Voter In-tegrity Project, spoke to members of the Lynnwood Ro-tary Club on recent VIP activities and publications. He outlined the challenges remaining for the Washington election system and reported on what reforms are still needed to solve those challenges.

Many thanks to you, our members, who made it pos-sible for us to respond to these opportunities. We will continue to do so until our mission of having free and fair elections is accomplished.

Mby Jonathan BechtleEFF staff addresses key audiences on election reform

10 LIVING LIBERTY

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

Dear Friend of EFF,

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

Cordially,

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

Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!

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

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

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

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

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

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

oes your company hold a charitable fund drive or offer matching contributions? Many companies have a special drive each year to encourage employees to give

money to charities. These programs often include matching gifts from the company. Most drives will allow you to designate your gift for any non-profi t organization (like EFF). This includes the state’s big Combined Fund Drive in October.

If your company does not offer a fund drive, it may offer a matching gift program. Usu-ally all that is required is for you to send us a form with your check or credit card con-tribution. We send verifi cation to your company that we are a 501(c)(3) organization and have received your donation. Then they send us a matching check!

Please see if your company will match your contribution to EFF. Because we are a non-profi t 501(c)(3) organization, all contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

For more information please contact Juliana McMahan, at (360) 956-3482 or jmcmahan@effwa.org.

D

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

n August 1, a federal district court in Seattle handed down a decision that undermines the secu-

rity of your ballot this fall. The case is called Washing-ton Association of Churches v. Secretary of State Reed and is the brainchild of a New York-based group called the Brennan Center for Justice.

If you’ve never heard of it before, don’t feel bad. Through all the recounts and lawsuits of the 2004 guber-natorial election, despite the thousands of legal voters who were disenfranchised by illegal votes and count-ing errors, the Brennan Center for Justice hasn’t once stepped foot into the state of Washington to help bring justice to our elections system.

Now the Center has fi nally stepped in, but what it’s seeking can hardly be called justice. Instead, the Bren-nan Center attorneys successfully used misleading evi-dence to convince a federal judge to remove security measures from Washington’s voter rolls.

Three months ago, the Brennan Center fi led a lawsuit against Secretary of State Reed on behalf of the Wash-ington Association of Churches and similar groups. The purpose was to decrease election security. Its beef was with how our state adds people to the voter rolls.

Because of a new federal law, in 2004 the legislature passed a bill requiring every new voter registration to be matched against a person’s driver’s license or social security fi le. This ensures people are who they say they are, and helps catch any errors before the new registra-tion is added to the system.

This system has been working well, although not per-fectly, since the licensing and social security databases aren’t fl awless. Sometimes the state has to contact a voter to make sure everything matches. But if the state makes an error, there’s a failsafe for the voter: If the registra-tion has not been ironed out by election day, the person can still vote a provisional ballot, which will be counted once the voter proves his eligibility. This way no one is disenfranchised by the matching requirement.

In their lawsuit, Brennan Center attorneys produced two people who claimed they were unable to register to vote in 2006 because of the new state law. A little detec-tive work by Stefan Sharkansky at Soundpolitics.com, however, revealed that neither voter lives in a precinct that has held an election in 2006. Despite the weakness of this evidence, the Brennan Center used it to claim “tens of thousands” of voters will likely be disenfran-

or years the King County Elections department has not been held accountable to the people; con-

sequently, poor leadership and irresponsibility have plagued it. Now, following an EFF recommendation and pressure from EFF members, the majority on the King County Council is poised to start fi xing the problem. They are preparing to replace the county executive-ap-pointed Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing with an elected county auditor.

This proposal is an amendment to the King County charter and will need to be approved by voters in 2009. Originally, voters were going to decide this fall, but Councilman Bob Ferguson, who originally supported letting voters decide this year, fl ip-fl opped. He has announced that he has the votes to postpone the ballot measure to 2009.

All other counties in Washington elect their top elec-tions offi cial. If King County approves an elected audi-tor, citizens will gain an administrator who is directly accountable to the people for his performance. Voters have the chance to hire or fi re him based upon his per-formance. Also, when the auditor is elected instead of appointed by the county executive, he can appeal to the public if he thinks the county is doing something wrong with elections. Currently, the executive limits what the elections director says publicly or even to the council.

Fby Victor JoecksElected auditor proposal may go to King County voters in 2009

King County Executive Ron Sims denounced the proposal as “absurd” and “politically motivated.” He argued that King County needs a professional elections director, and that electing an auditor will destabilize and politicize the offi ce.

Election “professionals” do not guarantee success. Exhibit A: Dean Logan. When King County Executive Ron Sims selected Logan, he instructed him—the elec-tion professional—to “clean house” in a troubled depart-ment. Logan did not just fail, he made things worse. His technical expertise did not mean he had the leader-ship skills or character necessary to direct the elections department.

Logan left the department in worse shape than he found it, and with 20 percent of the positions in elec-tions vacant or being fi lled by temporary workers. At the ballot box, voters are able to choose a professional if they want, but more importantly, they can hold whoever is elected accountable.

What Sims decries as destabilization is only a transi-tion at the very top, because the elections staff remains. A similar transition happens or has the potential to happen in every democratic election. The experiences every other county in Washington has had with its elected auditors show that a transition in elections can be made smoothly.

Sims’ “politicizing” claim is laughable, because the elections director in King County is already a political offi ce. All an elected auditor would do is shift power from Sims to the people. Sims appears to be motivated more by the fear of losing his political power than a genuine concern for what is in the best interest of King County residents.

An elected auditor is the fi rst step in reforming King County Elections. The council should make the audi-tor a non-partisan position. They should also make the elections division a stand-alone department led by the auditor. This will allow the auditor to focus solely on elections.

Additionally, the auditor needs authority to clean house in elections by reassigning employees who are not a good fi t to other departments. Logan’s resignation did not solve all the personnel problems in elections, and the new auditor should not be weighed down with incompe-tent staff.

EFF members have done an excellent job advocating for election reform in King County and a major vic-tory is in sight. Now is the chance to support the addi-tional reforms necessary to fully solve the problems in King County and to ensure free and fair elections for the future.

chised. Ironically, their victory in court on Tuesday makes voter disenfranchisement much more likely.

Why? Because removing the “match” security pro-cedure is like declaring open season for voter registra-tion fraud. Anyone can make up an identity, fi ll out a registration form, and be registered to vote this fall. Or a registration containing errors will create a duplicate voter fi le. So, if an ineligible voter disenfranchises you by casting an illegal ballot, too bad. There’s no failsafe option for you; your ballot gets cancelled out.

Judge Ricardo Martinez granted Brennan Center’s request for a preliminary injunction, stopping the “match” process for the 2006 primary and general elec-tion. He ruled that the state didn’t show why matching a voter’s information was necessary to prove a person’s eligibility, and that such a law confl icted with the fed-eral Help America Vote Act. But what is more important for voter eligibility than a valid name, address, birth-date, and other identifying information?

Washington voters have already seen how poorly the election system works when it operates on an “honor

system.” Martinez’s decision forces election offi cials to take the word of the voter. He also missed the phrase in the Help America Vote Act that allows states to enact verifi cation standards stricter than the federal require-ments. The Washington law improved on the federal law, it didn’t confl ict with it.

The judge even had the audacity to cite the 2004 guber-natorial election as a reason to register voters without verifying their identity. He says:

“Defendant argues that the public’s interest in prevent-ing voter fraud weighs against an injunction in this case. The Court disagrees. Given Washington’s most recent governor’s election, where the winner was decided by just hundreds of votes, the Court fi nds that the public interest weighs strongly in favor of letting every eligible resident of Washington register and cast a vote.”

Of course, now the judge won’t allow the state to actu-ally verify eligibility….

We hope Secretary of State Reed and Attorney Gen-eral McKenna will take whatever steps necessary to fi ght this attack on our election security.

Oby Jonathan BechtleBack to the “honor system”: Judge deals major blow to election security

“. . . REMOVING THE ‘MATCH’ SECURITY PROCEDURE IS LIKE

DECLARING OPEN SEASON FOR VOTER REGISTRATION

FRAUD. ANYONE CAN MAKE UP AN IDENTITY, FILL OUT A

REGISTRATION FORM, AND BE REGISTERED TO VOTE THIS FALL.”

“WASHINGTON VOTERS HAVE

ALREADY SEEN HOW POORLY THE

ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS WHEN IT

OPERATES ON AN ‘HONOR SYSTEM.”’

12 LIVING LIBERTY

ill the new Sam Reed please stand up? If you look closely, you’ll notice something different about him. No, he has not changed his hair

or wardrobe, but he has undergone a political makeover. Instead of being content with window-dressing election fi xes, Reed is now pushing for real reforms.

Over the past two years, Reed’s actions have frustrated those concerned with free and fair elections. He was a poor leader in the 2004 election fi asco, has consistently minimized the magnitude of fraudulent voters, and has not been honest about the fl aws in the state voter registration database.

EFF members were not satisfi ed with Reed’s action and have let him know with an outpouring of phone calls, letters, and emails. Their letters to the editor, blog postings, and participation in town hall meetings have made him realize that his actions were not politically prudent. Thanks to the encouragement and effort of EFF members, bloggers like Stefan Sharkan-sky of SoundPolitics.com, and other election reformers, in the last several months Reed has begun to fi ght for honest election procedures.

For example, in March, a King County judge ruled that Washington could not prevent a felon from voting if he had served his jail time but had not fulfi lled his fi nancial legal obligations. Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna decided to appeal the case and in a joint statement said, “Each state has the right to determine the process for restoring voting rights to felons.” Reed correctly argues that determining the eligibility of felons is a job for the legislature, not the courts. While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, Reed deserves praise for appealing the case and publicly denouncing the activist judge’s decision.

The state voter database is a mixed bag. Reed’s staff should be com-mended for the progress they have made: According to them 70,000 dead and duplicate registrations and 848 felons who are in prison or on parole have been removed from election rolls. Despite the progress, the database still has glaring problems. Some of the county updates to the database, including King County’s, are not being made in real time, and EFF analysis reveals that duplicate registrations are still being cre-ated. Reed has yet to publicly acknowledge these problems; instead he maintains that the database is working well.

Although the state database has problems, Reed has been defending it from a legal challenge that would magnify these problems. The leftist Brennan Center for Justice has challenged a state law that compares new voter registrations to a person’s driver’s license or social security fi le. Comparing information helps prevent errors and dupli-cate registrations. Brennan recently won an injunction to stop the law’s enforcement. Reed should be applauded for enforcing this law (until the court ruling) and now his offi ce has a chance to show its commitment to stopping fraudulent registrations by fi ghting this lawsuit.

Reed has also advocated for an elected auditor in King County to replace the elec-tions director who is appointed by the county executive. This proposal mirrors an EFF recommendation and would allow the citizens of King County to hold the chief elections offi cial accountable for his performance. We hope Reed’s public support for this proposal is a sign he will continue to advocate measures that bring accountability to elections.

Perhaps most importantly and most directly tied to EFF member activities, Reed has publicly advocated that Washington should adopt an Arizona-style proof of citizen-ship requirement. The Arizona law was the fi rst in the nation to require proof of citi-zenship when registering to vote. Voters can meet those requirements with a birth cer-tifi cate, a passport, naturalization papers, or other easily accessible documents. Reed’s support for proof of citizenship is vital to ensuring only citizens can vote.

The next step is for Reed to support a registration update. This Justice Department-approved idea would place all registrations on inactive status, pending a voter veri-fying his registration is accurate and providing proof of citizenship. If a voter failed to update his registration before an election, he could still vote a provisional ballot, which would be counted after he verifi ed his registration and citizenship. Until a full update occurs there is no way to fully clean the state voter roll.

Reed is listening to you. Please continue to let him know that Washington citizens deserve and demand nothing less than accurate and fair elections.

W

Will the NEW Sam Reed please stand up?

Friends –

Throughout the years, I have been a strong, outspoken advocate for King County joining the other 38 counties by electing their elec-tions chief. Like Pierce and Snohomish counties, there should be an elected County Auditor responsible for elections, records, and licens-ing in King County.

This is essential for three reasons. First, the position needs to be directly accountable to the voters of King County. Now, the position is two or three levels below the County Executive. This position is crucial for our democracy and should answer to the people – not to a partisanly elected offi cial. Second, the position needs to be a public advocate for elections. Throughout the years, we watched the King County elections opera-tion go down hill in terms of staffi ng, equipment, and space. Once the County Executive decided on a budget, the Manager of Records & Elections was not allowed to publicly disagree……even in front of the County Council. In the other 38 counties, the County Auditors could appeal to the public for support for the elections process. That makes a huge difference.

Third, since the constitution and laws of the State of Washington give counties (rather than the state) control over the election process, we need to have the county with one-third of the voters elect some-one who runs for offi ce based upon qualifi cations and ability to ad-minister elections.

I have talked with County Council members about this. I’m de-lighted to see they are moving ahead. This editorial does a good job of summing up the current situation. – Sam

by Victor Joecks