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.

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

You don’t have to prove intent on the part of voters or elected officials to discriminate to prove a violation of the law.

People could file a lawsuit in Superior Court, which could order the jurisdiction to use district-based voting or require the redrawing of district or ward boundaries. The court must then order new elections be held at the next election, and all sitting incumbents at least than two years left in their term would have to run for re-election.

Prevailing plaintiffs, but not defendants, would be entitled to attorneys fee. Defendants who win can only recover costs if the action is found to be “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.”

This bill is urged by the immigrant and minority advocacy group OneAmerica, which is based in Seattle. There are versions in both the House and Senate. The House version was amended by a committee to exclude cities with a population less than 1,000 from the requirements.

Overstreet was on the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs. He recommended rejecting the bill. The House bill has been sent to the floor of the House.

The U.S. already has the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits states and local governments from using practices or procedures that impair the ability of minorities to elect a candidate of their choice on an equal basis with other voters. Under federal law, citizens and the U.S. attorney general can file lawsuits to enforce the law. By passing this state bill, actions could be filed in state courts, rather than federal courts.

It’s unclear how much the bill would affect Whatcom County, which, as of the 2010 Census, is about 8 percent Hispanic or Latino. Bellingham and Whatcom County, when conducting elections for City City Council and County Council, have district-only voting in primary elections but at-large voting in the general elections. That means that, in the primary election, only voters within a city ward (the city has six wards) get to vote for their candidate, but in the general election all city voters get to vote in all City Council races. The same goes for Whatcom County, which has three council districts with two council members from each (plus an at-large council member).

The last minority Council Council candidate I can think of was Bob Kelly, a Nooksack tribal member who resigned from the council to work for the tribe and who is now chairman of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. A couple of us here in the newsroom were unable to think of the last racial minority Bellingham City Council member.

An article I wrote in 2011 based on the 2010 Census numbers:

White people constitute a smaller percentage of Whatcom County than a decade ago because the populations of racial minorities, especially Hispanics, have grown faster, 2010 Census data shows.
Still, more than 8 in 10 county residents describe themselves as solely “white.” About 8 in 100 describe themselves as of Hispanic or Latino origin.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released local-level data from the 2010 Census showing everything from population growth (the county now has 201,140 residents, a 20.6 percent increase from 10 years ago) to housing vacancies and race.

The largest minority population is “Hispanic or Latino, ” followed by “Asian.” The federal government classifies “Hispanic and/or Latino” as an origin, not a race.

Following is the composition of Whatcom County in 2010 compared to 2000:

• White: 81.9 percent (down from 86.2 percent)

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 7.8 percent (up from 5.2 percent in 2000)

• Asian: 3.5 percent (up from 2.8 percent)

• People of two or more races: 3 percent (up from 2.2 percent)

• American Indian and Alaska Native: 2.5 percent (down from 2.6 percent)

• Black or African American: 0.9 percent (up from 0.6 percent)

• Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander: 0.2 percent (up from 0.1 percent)

• Other race: 0.2 percent (was 0.2 percent)

The data also provides a snapshot of each community, including cities and unincorporated areas, and how they’ve changed. Some facts:

• American Indians make up less than half the population of the Lummi Reservation, but the reservation has the largest concentration of American Indians in the county.

• Of the cities, nearly 86 percent of Lynden residents were white, higher than other cities. More than one-third of nearby Everson residents were minorities, higher than other cities. Nearly 30 percent of Everson is Hispanic or Latino.

• Of all communities incorporated or not, Glacier, Maple Falls and Lummi Island have populations with the highest percentages of white people.

• About 500 people countywide describe themselves as being three or more races.

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.

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.

I asked him about the discrepancy between what he previously told me and the council’s actions.

At the time, “I was of the impression that we were going to be able to work through these,” he said.

After I did the Politics blog post in which he gave those comments, I talked to at least one council member who came away from a council discussion with a different conclusion than Knutzen drew.

Most of the changes are relatively small, Knutzen said, and the county will work through most of the issues. The issue that was appealed seemed to be the one that affects the most people, he said.

Still, at the time I talked with him he thought that if there was going to be one issue that was contentious and could be appealed, that was the one, he said.

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.

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.

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

Those questions aren’t currently included on SEPA checklists, which seemingly include just about everything else. Local governments that oversee permitting use the checklists to decide whether a project will likely have significant negative impacts on the environment. If they determine it would, they must require an environmental impact statement to study it in depth. If not, the issue a “determination of nonsignificance.” Also, they can issue a “mitigated determination of nonsignificance,” which, in bureaucratic-speak, means that if the project proponent takes specific steps to soften the project’s environmental impact the local government will decide it won’t need an environmental impact statement.

The bill, SB 6082, passed 48-0, with one absence. It’s now in the House of Representatives. A couple of public hearings have been scheduled.

Click here to see the bill report.

The bill was prime sponsored by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island. Her statement:

“If we are serious about agriculture in this state, we have to preserve our farmlands. This gives us one more tool to help us do that,” said Haugen. “We have lands that have been designated as having long-term agricultural significance. This bill adds to the guidelines we rely on to anticipate and control the impacts of projects on agricultural lands.”

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.

Do those who support this lack respect for our Constitution and the separation of powers as the Founding Fathers envisioned it? Are they simply taking steps necessary to confront the huge budget deficit? If they give the president this power, in the future, Congress could also take it away.

Here is a statement from Larsen on his vote:

“If we are serious about reducing the deficit, then we need to give the President the power to cut wasteful pork barrel spending out of bills passed by Congress,” Larsen said. “The line-item veto will help ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and pet projects are not snuck into major bills. I remain committed to rooting out wasteful spending as part of a balanced approach to cut the deficit.”

What do you think?

Here is the breakdown of who in Washington voted for and against the bill:

Democrats
Dicks-N
Inslee-Y
Larsen-Y
McDermott-N
Smith-Y

Republicans
Hastings-Y
Herrera Beutler-N
McMorris Rodgers-Y
Reichert-Y

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:

“Today our state has taken another historic step toward extending fundamental rights and freedoms to all families in Washington State.

“I am thankful for the leadership and courage of my House colleagues for their commitment to human rights and equality. With their support, this long overdue bill now heads to the governor for her approval.”

In other news, you may remember that Everett attorney Stephen Pidgeon filed with the state for a statewide initiative related to marriage. He’s now challenging the ballot title written by the Attorney General’s Office. Pidgeon is running for attorney general.

This is what the A-G wrote for I-1192:

Ballot Title

Initiative Measure No. 1192 concerns the definition of marriage.

This measure would define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman and prohibit marriage when the parties are persons other than one man and one woman.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary

This measure would define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman. It would also prohibit marriage if the parties to the marriage are persons other than one man and one woman.

Pidgeon said the ballot title is misleading and presumptive because the initiative only clarifies what’s already in law and doesn’t set out any new prohibitions. He wants the following instead: “This measure would restate (or “clarify”) the existing statutory definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

Click here to see his challenge. He ask the court to use his wording instead. The challenge will be heard in Thurston County Superior Court.

As a side note, Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is running for governor, opposes gay marriage.

And lastly on the gay-marriage topic, the Secretary of State’s Office put out a Q&A on how any challenge to the pending bill legalizing gay marriage would work (opponents are already talking about referendum):

Q. When would the legislation ordinarily take effect?
A. 90 days after adjournment of the regular session, or June 7 this year.

Q. When can a referendum be filed?
A. After Gov. Chris Gregoire has taken action on the bill. She has five working days to act, once the bill is actually delivered to her desk. She has said she will sign the bill, although it is possible she could veto sections or amendments that were attached. The referendum measure must include the text of the bill as passed by the Legislature and acted upon by the governor.

Q. How long does it take for a referendum to be processed and ready for signature-gathering?
A. Roughly three weeks. The measure is sent to the Attorney General’s Office for preparation of a ballot title, concise description and ballot summary. The AG has five working days to complete this. Within five working days, anyone dissatisfied with the ballot title or summary may petition the Thurston County Superior Court for changes. The court is required to “expeditiously review” the request(s) and render a decision within five days. The decision of the court is final. After that, sponsors can print petitions and begin collecting signatures.

Q. What is the deadline for turning in signatures?
A. June 6.

Q. How many signatures are required?
A. The bare minimum is 120,577, or 4 percent of all votes cast in the 2008 election for governor. The state Elections Division suggests turning in 150,000 or more, to cover invalid and duplicate signatures. The average error rate is 18 percent.

Q. How long does the signature check take?
A. If sponsors submit a large enough pad, a random sample can be checked in about two weeks; a full every-signature check can take a month. Crews will be checking to make sure the signer is a properly registered Washington voter, that the signature matches the one of file, and that the person didn’t sign more than once. Both sides are welcome to have a small number of observers whenever the signature-verification is underway.

Q. What happens to the gay-marriage law in the meantime?
A. The filing of the signatures suspends the effective date. If the signature-verification process shows an insufficient number of signatures, then the law goes into effect right away. If the referendum is qualified for the ballot, then the law remains on hold until the voters make their decision in November and the General Election results are certified on Dec. 6.

Q. Is there a “window” in which same-sex couples can marry, between the bill being approved by the Legislature and Governor and a vote in November?
A. No.

Q. What is the question posed to voters by the referendum?
A. The referendum places the text of the bill before them. An affirmative vote is to uphold the law as it passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor. A vote to reject wipes out the measure and it does not take effect. As with 2009 vote on Referendum 71, the “everything but marriage” law, the sponsors who mount the effort to get the measure on the ballot will be asking for a “reject” vote on their own referendum. Bottom line: a vote to “approve” upholds the new law, a vote to “reject” abolishes the bill.

Q. Does the referendum require a simple majority or a supermajority?
A. A referendum takes a simple majority to pass.

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.

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.

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.

Griffin said the Auditor’s Office has no way of knowing how many people have pending changes of address or new registrations and won’t be able to participate in the caucuses.

Luanne Van Werven, chairwoman of the Whatcom Republicans, said she doubts the number of people affected is very large. Auditor’s Office staff said they were surprised by the large number of people who registered to vote in advance of the Feb. 14 special election.

Van Werven said the state Republican Party was previously considering a resolution that set Feb. 27 as a deadline to be registered to vote and participate in the caucuses. But that resolution was rejected, after it came to light the fact that some auditor’s offices couldn’t process registrations because of the special election.

She first heard about it because Whatcom County Auditor Debbie Adelstein contacted her a couple of weeks ago to point out the schedule conflict, she said.

The Democrats will allow people to register to vote at the caucuses and still participate in them. Their caucuses begin April 15.

The Republicans haven’t allowed people to register and vote the same day, and they don’t plan to do that this year, Van Werven said. They have to have time to find out if somebody is properly registered to vote, she said.

Van Werven noted that the delegates elected out of the precinct caucuses on March 3 to attend the county-level caucuses will not be bound to support a particular presidential candidate. And the same goes for the delegates elected at the county caucus to the state convention, she said. At the state convention, delegates who are selected after they pledge to support a particular candidate will be required to support that candidate at the national convention.

Click here to see my previous post about the Republican caucuses and how they work.

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.

With the benefit of hindsight, he acknowledged the city could have done a better job of staying on top of needed repairs to Thornton Road and other streets when the economy was strong and more money was coming in.

“In a perfect world, we would have been doing that all over the city, but we haven’t,” Jensen said.

Motorists on Thornton were restricted two weeks ago to 10 mph on a short stretch of that road as a result of extreme freeze-thaw damage.

Jensen likened the city to a “big ship that’s slow to turn.” He also suggested Ferndale officials weren’t the only ones caught off guard by the economy.

“Like a lot of people in the United States,” Jensen said, “we are not financial geniuses.”

The city’s decision to support a sales tax increase comes in the wake of a decision last year to move forward with the construction of a long-delayed new police station. Some in the city have questioned the wisdom of the project and its cost, given the economy and the city’s other needs. Jensen defended that decision in an interview last month.

“What you do in a budget is, you look at your priorities. After a lot of community involvement and a lot of debate, we felt the police station was a budget priority,” the mayor said.

The 18,000 square-foot station, being built for $2.7 million, is within budget and should be ready for occupancy before the end of March, city officials said on Monday.

The council’s resolution on Monday supporting the sales tax was a response to a headline in the Jan. 31 Herald saying city leaders were “split” over the measure. The story highlighted the different positions held by Jensen and Councilman Keith Olson, who along with former Councilman Steve Malpezzi voted against placing the tax on the February ballot.

Olson abstained on the vote for the resolution, saying voting in an election was a personal matter not intended for the public record. Councilman Brent Goodrich, who was absent from Monday’s meeting, went on the record at a Wednesday, Feb. 1 committee meeting saying he supported the resolution.

Cathy Watson, who replaced Malpezzi on the council, was a strong voice in support of the tax increase, as was Councilman Jon Mutchler. He said it was unfortunate the Herald reported a “split” among city leaders on the front page because “elections in Ferndale tend to be close.”

Before the resolution came to a vote, Mutchler said he hoped the Herald would report unanimity in the council’s position, rather than a split, “if that’s what happens tonight.”

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.