From Stark

Democrat Suzan DelBene, former director of the Washington Department of Revenue, will be in Whatcom County Saturday to campaign for the 1st District seat in Congress.

Thanks to the redrawing of Congressional districts, most of Whatcom County outside Bellingham is now in the 1st District.

Like some of her Democratic rivals for the Congressional seat, DelBene is far better known in suburban Seattle. She ran a close but unsuccessful congressional race against Dave Reichert in 2010 before Gov. Chris Gregoire named her to the Department of Revenue post.

DelBene told me she’s looking forward to hearing from Whatcom County residents before she takes a position on the Gateway Pacific Terminal project at Cherry Point.

I’ll post more of my interview with her on Monday.

From Paben

State Rep. Jason Overstreet, R-Blaine, opposes a bill working its way through the House of Representatives that has to do with elections and minorities’ representation.

Rep. Overstreet

The bill, HB 2612, is called the Washington Voting Rights Act of 2012.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around how exactly the bill would work. Click here to see the bill report, which describes how it would work. This is what I’ve taken away so far:

The bill would prohibit at-large election and district-based elections that are drawn or maintained in a manner that deny an equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice because they “dilute” minority voters. This could work a couple of ways:

• District-based: In a district-based voting, where the candidate must live in that district and only people in that district can vote for him or her, the boundaries could be drawn to disperse minority populations so that they don’t make a sizable percentage of population in any one district.

• At-large based: When everybody gets to vote for all candidates for a city or county position, for example, the majority of people could simply overpower the minority vote. At a public hearing on the bill, advocates used the example of Yakima, which is 45 percent Latino but has never elected a Latino candidate to the City Council. That city uses at-large voting. Recently, a Latina was appointed to fill a vacancy, but when she ran for re-election, she was defeated, while incumbents traditionally win by a large margin, advocates said.

The voting system would be illegal under the bill when:

• Elections there are racially polarized. This is shown by demonstrating that the minorities vote differently.
• Racially polarized voting there results in vote dilution where minorities can’t get one of their candidates elected
• A remedy exists (more…)

From Stark

This just in:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 10, 2012

FACT SHEET: Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012.  This new law will save money for millions of Americans and ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy.

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.  The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.

The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and addresses important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception.  Background on this policy is included below:

·         Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012.  These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.

·         Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

o   Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o   Establishes a one year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

·         The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o   Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o   Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o   Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o   Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii.  One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

From Paben

You may have seen today’s story about the Whatcom County Council voting yesterday to appeal part of the recent state growth board decision. If not, click here to read it.

Knutzen

You may also remember Whatcom County Council member Bill Knutzen telling me he didn’t think the council planned to appeal the Jan. 9 growth board decision.

The council decided to appeal only one issues out of the growth board decision, out of 24 issues in which the board faulted the county. Specifically, the board said the specially designated areas of Fort Bellingham/Marietta and North Bellingham are too close to urban-zoned areas and, because of that proximity, they’re invalid. That’s what the council appealed.

I just called Knutzen. He wasn’t at the special council meeting yesterday in which the council voted 5-1 to appeal, with council member Carl Weimer opposed. He probably would have also voted to appeal had he been there, he said. (more…)

From Stark

The big banks got very little relief from their legal liabilities from the $25 billion mortgage documentation settlement announced Thursday, Feb. 9, Bloomberg reports.

While the deal does seem to settle mortgage documentation issues with state and federal regulators, the individual homeowners affected by “robosigning” and other abuses can still pursue their own lawsuits on this issue, including class action cases. And the states reserved their right to pursue criminal cases when appropriate.

And the potential legal liability for the big banks goes far beyond the robosigning mess. What will it cost the mortgage lenders to settle widespread allegations that they resold mortgage loans and mortgage-backed bonds to investors without disclosing how risky many of those mortgage loans were?

Garrett

From Paben

Deborra Garrett has sent out a press release announcing her candidacy for the Whatcom County Superior Court judge position that will be vacated after the retirement of Judge Steven Mura.

Click here to read the press release.

Garrett is one of four people who have already expressed interest in running for the seat, although the official candidate filing period with the Whatcom County Auditor’s Office is still months away.

Click here to see my previous post with other candidates for this race.

From Stark

After months of closed-door negotiating, a massive, multi-billion-dollar deal between big banks and state and federal regulators has been announced to partly resolve legal issues surrounding the questionable practices that have prevailed in documenting home mortgages and foreclosures.

But after a quick scan of initial news reports, it seems evident to me that the real impact of this deal on both homeowners and banks won’t be clear for months.

The deal itself is too complex to enable an expert–much less you or me–to quickly develop a well-informed point of view on what it all means. And there is no quick way to rework millions of mortgages caught up in the mortgage documentation mess.

UPDATE: Here’s a Q&A from Associated Press that offers the best overview I’ve seen at this point.

The terms of this deal do provide evidence that government regulators are willing to push much harder on these kinds of matters than they were 10 years ago, when Household International agreed to a $484 million settlement. That deal included no reductions on loan principal, only minor changes to loan terms, and nothing for those who had already lost homes in foreclosure. The deal also required individual homeowners to sign away their rights to sue the company in return for a modest share in the money that was distributed.

The latest settlement will offer a cash consolation prize  of as much as $2,000 to those who lost their homes due to improper foreclosure practices. Some mortgage borrowers will qualify for principal reductions. The states did not bargain away their right to file criminal charges if they choose to pursue them. And borrowers who have kept their mortgages current, as well as those who are delinquent, may get some help.

But in this account in the Washington Post, debt counselors working with distressed borrowers don’t seem overly impressed by the amount of relief that people will get.

At the Naked Capitalism blog, Yves Smith picks the deal to pieces. Smith is among those who warned that financial Armageddon was heading our way,  at a time when most government officials and big banker types were reassuring us that the fallout from “the subprime mortgage problem” posed no threat to the banks or the larger economy. She continues to call down fire and brimstone on the  banking system and the people who are paid to regulate it.

Here is Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna’s take on the deal and its impact on this state.

From Paben

The state Senate has passed a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, that would add the following questions to State Environmental Policy Act checklists, which project proponents have to fill out and submit to government agencies so those agencies can evaluate the likely environmental impacts of a project:

Sen. Ericksen

1. Is there any agricultural land affected by the proposal?

2. How much agricultural land will be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the proposal?

3. Would the proposal affect the ability of adjacent agricultural landowners to continue farming?

4. Would the proposal affect existing agricultural drainage?

5. Would the proposal affect or interfere with normal agricultural operations?

6. Would the proposal result in placing or removing agricultural soils from the site?

7. Describe any proposed measures to preserve or enhance agricultural resource lands (more…)

From Paben

UPDATED AT 3:25 P.M. ON FEB. 9: Rep. Larsen’s office sent over a fact sheet on this bill. A spokesman for Larsen said the bill passes constitutional muster because the final spending authority rests with Congress. From the fact sheet:

Click here to read the fact sheet.

START OF ORIGINAL POST

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to give the president the power of the line-item veto, a power that would allow the president to scratch out spending in bills passed by Congress.

Rep. Larsen

A majority of Democrats in the House voted no. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, voted yes.

Republicans in the House who support the move say it would let the president cut wasteful spending and reduce the federal budget deficit. The White House strongly encourages the move. The prospects of the bill passing are dimmer in the Senate. Click here to read about it in The Washington Post.

Critics say it shifts power to the president that our Founding Fathers reserved for Congress.

Here is what Article I, Section 7 of the Constitutions say, in part:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

Republicans in Congress gave the same authority to President Clinton in the 90s, and he used the authority to saved nearly $2 billion in spending, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Advocates of this bill say it has been crafted to pass Constitutional muster. (more…)

From Paben

The state House of Representatives today approved the bill legalizing gay marriage. As they said they would, Democratic Reps. Kris Lytton of Anacortes and Jeff Morris of Mount Vernon voted to approve the bill, and Republican Reps. Vincent Buys of Everson and Jason Overstreet of Blaine voted against the bill.

Click here to see a full list of who voted for and against it.

The state Senate on Wednesday, Feb. 1, voted to approve the bill. Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, voted for the bill. Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, refused to say before the vote what he would vote. In the end, he voted against the bill.

Ranker, whose father is gay, released the following statement in response to the House vote today: (more…)

From Stark

The Washington Post has taken a close look at U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks’ use of earmarks to get federal funds for the Puget Sound Partnership, at a time when his son David served as that agency’s executive director.

Both father and son tell the Post that the funding was all about cleaning up Puget Sound, and had nothing to do with family ties.

The younger Dicks left his job as the agency’s boss after the GOP took over the House and his father lost the committee chairmanship that had given him authority over large amounts of federal environmental funding.

This story is now listed as “most popular” on the Post’s website.

From Stark

A new group called Protect Whatcom has fired up a website as part of a countywide effort to encourage people to get involved in the environmental review and permitting process for the Gateway Pacific Terminal project that SSA Marine has proposed for its property at Cherry Point, just south of the BP refinery.

Organizer Terry Wechsler, who describes herself as a retired public interest attorney, said she did not wish to be critical of the “Coal-Free Bellingham” initiative campaign to get a ballot measure that supposedly would outlaw the passage of coal trains through the city. But she also said that the leaders of that effort are mistaken “legally inaccurate”  in saying that the local, state and federal regulatory process can’t be counted upon to block the coal terminal proposal.

As Wechsler sees it, the State Environmental Policy Act sets stringent standards for environmental review that could, in fact, block SSA Marine’s plans if studies show the coal terminal could not be built without harm to the environment.

She noted that the environmental impact statement for the project will consider “no action” as one of the alternatives for the Cherry Point site.

“We want to teach people how to be a part of the process,” Wechsler said. “The process is going to work more effectively with more participation … Everyone should consider the impacts on them of a project of this magnitude. When enough public voices speak out about a project, it can stop a project.”

Former Bellingham mayor Dan Pike, who is not directly involved with either Coal-Free Bellingham or Protect Whatcom, said he agreed with Wechsler that the environmental review process could succeed in stopping the coal port.

“I fully agree with that,” Pike said. “In fact, I’m very confident of that … I share faith in the process if people are engaged.”

Pike too said he had no wish to criticize the Coal-Free Bellingham initiative effort.

“I think it serves a positive purpose overall,” Pike said. “It keeps people focused on the importance of the issue.”

Pike also doubts that such an initiative will survive a court review, since the Constitution gives the federal government, not local communities, the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

“I don’t see them (courts) saying you can just overturn the Constitution without having amendment and conventions to change it,” Pike said.

Stoney Bird is a former corporate attorney active in the anti-coal train initiative effort. He argued that the continuing deterioration of the global environment is evidence that the existing system of environmental regulation doesn’t do enough. As he sees it, the permit process facing Gateway Pacific is geared to the enventual granting of permits.

“Although a few projects may have been stopped, overall, projects get approved,” Bird said. “The system is slanted. The system is biased.”

But he doesn’t reject Protect Whatcom’s approach, either.

“I would never say that people shouldn’t pursue the conventional regulatory route, because it might succeed,” Bird said.

I’ll have a full report online and in the print edition soon.

From Paben

Republicans in Whatcom County who don’t currently have updated voter registrations won’t be able to participate in the precinct-level caucuses on March 3.

Here is why:

The Republican Party will only let people participate who are registered to vote and who have updated addresses, so the party can determine they’re at the correct caucus based on the voting precinct they live in.

Van Werven

But, because of the Feb. 14 special elections, which include school district levies and a Ferndale sales tax measure, the Whatcom County Auditor’s Office can’t legally process changes to voter registrations right now. They can’t start processing the new registrations or changes of address to people who are already registered voters until after the election is certified on Feb. 28. Once they get started processing them, they likely won’t have enough time to fully process them before that Saturday, March 3, the GOP caucuses, said Pete Griffin, county elections supervisor.

The office processed changes of addresses up until Jan. 16. People who have never been registered in the state of Washington could register to vote in person up until Monday, Feb. 6. Changes up until those dates have been processed by the office and put into a database. Whatcom County Republicans, who are overseeing our local caucuses, will have copies of that database on their computers at the caucus locations to verify people are in the right location.

But anybody who doesn’t have current information in the database can’t participate. (more…)

From Paben

The following is a guest blog post from Herald reporter Ralph Schwartz:

Ferndale City Council members wanted to make it clear: They are on the record as supporting a sales tax increase they had placed on the Feb. 14 ballot.

Mayor Jensen

The council voted 5-0 on Monday, Feb. 6, to approve a resolution in support of the 0.2 percent sales tax hike citywide, to pay for road improvements. The city has fallen behind on its maintenance; 27 percent of its 55 miles of road is beyond patching and needs to be completely rebuilt, the resolution said. The city estimates the total cost of all these repairs will be $15.64 million.

The sales tax, if approved, will collect an estimated $300,000 per year over 10 years.

Mayor Gary Jensen has said the city’s road fund dried up after the economy went bad, and the city has been forced into a corner from which it has no choice but to ask residents for more revenue. (more…)

From Paben

Sen. Brown

The Seattle Times and The Daily Herald of Everett have written against a bill in Olympia that would let school districts charge for the actual costs of searching, redacting and copying records.

Click here to see The Seattle Times editorial. Click here to see The Herald editorial.

The bill, SB 6576, would give school districts that ability but not other local governments. Currently, school districts and other local municipalities can only charge to recoup the costs of copying records, generally 15 cents per page. Click here to see the bill report. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, the Senate majority leader.

Thompson

Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center blogged on this bill and how the Senate very little notice of the hearing and only about a minute to testify on this bill. He posted a video of the hearing.

Rowland Thompson of Allied Daily Newspapers (full disclosure: The Bellingham Herald is a member of Allied Daily Newspapers) was there to testify. He spoke against the bill.

He used the example of a single mother whose kid is special needs and who is in an adversarial relationship with the school district. The costs to her of getting records could get very expensive, he said.