The editorial in the Everett Herald Tuesday spoke to why the Supreme Court should rule in favor of revealing the names of signers of Initiative and Referendum petitions. Their argument was that it is a “Public Disclosure” issue tied in some way to the Open Government Act of 1972.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Public Disclosure Commission was formed to create public oversight of election financing. The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.
The state constitution outlines the mechanics of the initiative process. The number of signatures required is determined by how many voters participated in the last general election where we voted for governor. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the signers of the petitions are indeed valid registered voters as outlined in the petition and that enough signatures were collected to meet the numerical threshold requirement.
Where I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my name being known as a signer of petitions, others may. I have on numerous occasions signed petitions for initiatives that I knew I would vote against if they made it to the ballot. For me, signing the petition is an agreement that the issue should be placed on the ballot, not an endorsement of the content. I would hate to think that by signing a petition I was advertising a particular viewpoint on the issue. I would hate to think that my signature on a petition could be used as a weapon against me or my family.
I believe in the public process that allows us to vote on important issues. Getting those important issues on the ballot is tough enough already. The idea that signers of petitions could be exposed to public harassment in the name of disclosure is just wrong.
I would challenge anyone to offer evidence that the process is compromised in any way by maintaining the privacy of those individuals who signed to give voters a chance to decide.
Absent that evidence, the names on petitions are not relevant and should not be publicized.
I believe in Initiatives and Referendums because they give the public a tool to participate in the legislative process when in their judgment the elected legislative bodies have failed to do so.
The Herald editorial filled four columns with useless drivel. They even referenced the 2004 gubernatorial election; trying to suggest that because a lawsuit was filed challenging the vote count in that election, we should question the process of verifying the authenticity of petition signatures. The Secretary of State and county auditors across the state work hard to maintain voter registration records. The content is changing by the day. At a given point in time, the qualification to vote in a particular election is determined by existing records.
If the Herald wants to criticize the County Auditors for their failure to remove deceased voters or relocated voters from the roles, I won’t argue; but they are suggesting that because of that failure, the identities of petition signers should be made public so the rest of us can properly scrutinize the validity of the names.
Good government is founded upon a system of good processes. Public participation is one of those processes. The public’s business should be conducted in the light of day to insure that it is not corrupt in any way. Extensive effort has been made to accommodate public oversight and participation. I can find no reference to intent or text in the law that would suggest that public oversight in this instance is anything more than monitoring the process of verification.
No Loss for Words 
What does an Illegal Alien look like?
by Steve DanaI was in Arizona and Southern California recently to visit family. I was driving on Interstate 8 from just south of Phoenix to San Diego. In the course of that trip, I encountered three checkpoints on the interstate highway that stopped every car and checked every vehicle to some degree. The folks staffing the checkpoints were Border Patrol officers. They were looking for illegal aliens. I was driving a pick-up truck with a canopy top with windows. They could see inside the cab or in the back if they bothered to look, but they didn’t. They didn’t say anything as I approached the checkpoint other than “Have a nice day.”
There was major man-power at each of these checkpoints looking for illegal aliens.
There have been stories told about border patrol checkpoints on US Highway 101 near Forks in our state; Immigration authorities looking for illegal aliens.
Are they looking for anything else? Can they search my vehicle without my consent?
If they find a stash of cash in a vehicle will they detain a driver and vehicle? Do they interact with state or local law enforcement agencies if they find criminals other than those immigration related?
So what tools do these folks use to identify illegal aliens? What does an illegal alien look like?
Eugene Robinson’s column in Tuesday’s Everett Herald characterized the Arizona immigration law as “draconian” and “abomination”. It was “racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean spirited and unjust.” Robinson said that the only good thing about it was the fact that its excessiveness may well make it unconstitutional.
As I understand it, the Arizona law requires that in the course of investigating a police related matter, participants are required to show adequate identification to establish legal residency in the state or country.
If the border patrol stops a car in Phoenix looking for illegal aliens, aren’t they looking for Mexicans? The border patrol doesn’t need probable cause to stop you, do they?
As a business owner, I am required to gather information from prospective employees that establish their citizenship or right to work if they are not citizens. If they don’t have proper documents, I cannot hire them. I am subject to penalties if I fail to secure those documents before hiring anyone.
There is a Department of Motor Vehicles in every state that collects a fee from every applicant that can pass a test, even when the test has to be given a foreign language, issues a license to drive a car without proof of insurance and is not subject to the same requirements I am as a private business owner to demand proof of citizenship or right to be in the country legally before receiving a license. And for those folks that are not citizens, they receive the same license that I do. Why don’t we have a provisional license for aliens?
I, as a private business owner may be subject to civil or criminal penalty for not doing the job we would expect the government to do.
Why is it that the police are “racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean spirited and unjust” if they demand that proof of citizenship but before I give a person a job or rent him a place to live I am required to do so?
I don’t believe we need a national identification card, but we do need state identity systems that talk to each other and have common standards that make the information easy to share.
We need a system that is at least as effective as other government programs that shoulders the burden of establishing legal residency rather than punishing private business owners. For public agencies that render services paid with public dollars, we need to tie provision of services to only citizens with that state ID card. Schools, medical services and social services are examples.
As an employer or landlord, presentation of a state card should adequately establish legal right to work or rent.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | 2 Comments »